>io\ 


^  \\i«  WwotogtVaf  j 


rm 


& 


%7, 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Wi&mte/A 


J 


D 


Shelf. 


a 


3L. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/genesissemitOOdavi 


GENESIS 


AND 


SEM  [TIC     TEA  1)  IT  I  ON 


BY 


JOHN    J).    DAVIS,    Ph.D. 

PBOFBSSOB  OF  SEMITIC   PniLOLOGY  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY   IN  THE 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  AT  PRINCETON,    N.  J. 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNEB'S    SONS 

1894 


Copyright,  1S94,  by 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'9  SONS 


TROW  DIRECTORY 
AND   BOOKBINDING  COMPANY 
NEW  YORK 


THEFACE 

Babylonian  traditions  concerning  primitive  times  were 
cited  by  Greek  and  Jewish  writers.  These  reports  indi- 
cated that  the  peoples  of  Semitic  race  or  Babylonian  cult- 
ure who  dwelt  on  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  rivers  had  ac- 
counts of  the  early  ages  which  told  the  same  story  as  the 
Hebrew  narratives  or  showed  common  conceptions  with 
them.  But  the  genuineness,  at  times,  and  the  antiquity 
of  these  reputed  Babylonian  traditions  were  questioned, 
and  the  doubts  connected  with  them  seriously  detracted 
from  their  value  for  purposes  of  criticism.  Investiga- 
tion received  new  impetus  and  encouragement  from 
that  notable  series  of  brilliant  discoveries  which  were  be- 
gun, it  radj  be  said  without  invidious  comparison,  by 
George  Smith.  Documents  of  great  age,  written  in  cunei- 
form characters,  were  unearthed  which  both  confirmed 
the  general  trustworthiness  of  the  Greek  citations  which 
have  been  mentioned,  and  demonstrated  that  much,  per- 
haps all,  of  the  doctrine  taught  in  Israel  concerning  prim- 
itive times  was  an  inheritance  from  Babylonia. 

These  native  records  have  illuminated  and  elucidated 
the  early  chapters  of  Genesis.  They  have  established 
the  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  narratives  as  traditions,  with 
all  that  this  faet  involves  for  interpretation,  and  they 
have  contributed  particulars  of  greater  or  less  value, 
which  were  wanting  in  the  Hebrew  record,  but  which 
serve  to  at  least  cast  a  side  light  and  sometimes  to  make 
methods  and  conceptions  plain  which  before  were  ob- 
scure or  ambiguous. 


IV  PREFACE 

But  along  with  the  valuable  material  which  has  been 
obtained  from  these  records  of  the  past,  much  that  is 
worthless  has  been  dragged  into  publicity.  Mistransla- 
tions, due  in  part  to  the  infancy  of  the  science  of  Assyr- 
iology  and  in  part  to  undue  haste,  have  been  put  forward, 
meaning  has  been  wrested  from  the  narratives  which  they 
were  never  intended  to  bear,  and  false  conclusions  have 
been  drawn ;  and  these  errors  have  gained  currency  in 
popular  literature  and  have  been  made  the  basis  of  ar- 
gument in  works  which  assume  to  speak  with  authority 
on  biblical  matters. 

The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  attempt  the  removal 
of  the  accumulated  rubbish  and  expose  the  true  mate- 
rial ;  and  when  the  work  of  separation  has  been  accom- 
plished  as  thoroughly  as  possible,  to  subject  the  gen- 
uine materials  to  careful  investigation.  In  not  a  few 
instances  the  Hebrew  narrative  still  stands  alone,  no  par- 
allel account  having  been  found  in  the  literature  of  other 
nations.  When  such  is  the  case,  the  attempt  is  made  to 
discover  the  meaning  of  the  record  in  the  manner  of  or- 
dinary exegesis,  with  all  the  aid  afforded  by  early  He- 
lire  w  understanding  of  the  tradition.  It  is  regretted  that 
on  several  topics  negative  results  only  can  be  obtained  ; 
but  patience  with  negative  results  and  the  quiet  tarry- 
ing by  the  argument  for  and  against  are  better  than  haste. 

The  so-called  Non-Semitic  Version  of  the  Creation- 
Story  has  not  been  introduced  into  the  discussion.  The 
text  of  this  document  has  not  been  published,  so  far  as 
the  writer  knows,  but  it  has  been  rendered  into  Eng- 
lish by  so  competent  a  translator  as  Mr.  Pinches,  of  the 
British  Museum.  It  has  not  been  compared  in  these 
pages  with  the  Hebrew  records,  because  it  is  not  a  for- 
mal and  orderly  account  of  creation,  but  merely  consti- 
tutes the  introduction  to  a  dedicatory  prayer  uttered 
on  occasion,  apparently,  of  the  building  or  repairing  of 


PREFACE  V 

the  great  temple  of  Esagila  in  Babylon  and  its  numer- 
ous  sanctuaries.  Being  the  introductory  remarks  to  the 
prayer,  it  fittingly  recalls  moments  of  creation,  begin- 
ning in  the  time  before  the  earth  was,  by  which  a  place 
was  prepared  for  that  famous  seat  of  worship.  It  con- 
tains references  to  creation,  just  as  do  the  eighth  Psalm 
and  the  thirty-eighth  chapter  of  Job  and  the  second 
chapter  of  Genesis.  In  fact,  it  forms  a  strict  parallel 
to  these  passages,  notably  to  the  latter  one  as  this  has 
been  traditionally  interpreted,  in  that  it  gives  a  resume 
of  such  events  in  the  history  of  creation  as  were  ap- 
propriate to  introduce  the  subject  in  hand. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  the  chapter  on  the  creation 
of  the  universe  is  reprinted  in  the  present  volume  al- 
most verbatim  from  the  pages  of  the  Presbyterian  and 
Reformed  Review  for  July,  1892.  The  chapter  on  the 
flood  appeared  originally  in  the  tenth  volume  of  the 
Presbyterian  Review,  but  it  has  been  revised  and  con- 
siderably enlarged  for  the  present  publication. 

J.  D.  D. 

August  17,  1S94. 


CONTENTS 


1.    TlIE   CREATION    OF   THE    UNIVERSE,    . 

II.  The  Sabbatb 

III.  The  Creation  <>i    .Man,    . 

IV.  The  Help  Meet  fob  Man, 

V.  The  Site  of  the  Garden  <>k  Eden, 
VI.  The  Temptation  of  Max, 
VII.  The  Serpent  of  the  Temptation, 

VIII.  The  Cherubim, 

IX.  Cain  and  Abel,         .... 
X.  Cainites  and  Sethites,   . 
XI.  The  Sons  of  God,     .... 
XII.  The  Delude, 

XIII.  The  Mighty  Hunter, 

XIV.  The  Tower  of  Babel, 


PAGE 

1 

23 

36 

48 

55 

63 

68 

78 

85 

90 

101 

110 

135 

141 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Fight  Between  Marduk  and  the  Dragon  Tiahat 

The  Sin  Ai.i.i.n  Adam  and  Eve  Cylinder, 

The  Seal  op  Dongi,  King  of  Or,  . 

Seal  with  a  Serpent  and  Other  Emblems, 

[zdubab  and  the  Bull, 

Marduk  in  Combat  with  Tiamat, 

Marduk  in  Combat  with  Tiamat, 

The  Cherubim  Seal  op  Lenormani 

Winged  Human-headed  Bulls, 

Scorpion  Men,     .... 

Colossal  Relief  op  Izdubar,   . 

Ancient  Babylonian  Tower,    . 

Hunting  Scenes  in  the  Career  uk  Izdubar 


PAGE 

4 

63 

.      63 

63 

67 

.        70 

71 

78 

78 

80 

.     136 

.     140 

.     146 


GENESIS  AND    SEMITIC 
TRADITION 


THE   CREATION   OF  THE   UNIVERSE 

From  the  broken  and  scattered  remains  of  ancient 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  literature  there  has  been  re- 
eovered,  as  is  well  known,  a  story  of  creation,  notable 
for  its  striking  resemblance  to  the  Hebrew  account.  The 
narrative  exists  in  mutilated  condition,  it  is  true  ;  never- 
theless, since  it  was  written  on  a  series  of  tablets,  each 
of  which  contained  the  title  of  the  complete  work,  the 
number  to  indicate  its  place  in  the  series,  and  a  catch- 
line  with  the  opening  Avords  of  the  succeeding  plate,  the 
rearrangement  of  the  fragments  in  their  original  order  is 
possible,  and  with  that  is  established  the  succession  of 
incidents  in  the  story  as  once  told.1 

The  account  begins  with  a  primitive  chaos. 

"  At  the  time  when  on  high  the  heaven  announced  not, 
Below  the  earth  named  not  a  name, 

[That  is  to  say  :  When  heaven  and  earth  did  not  existj 
Then  primeval  ocean,  their  generator,  [and] 
Muininu  Thlmat  [the  watery  deep],  the  bearer  of  their  totality, 
United  their  waters  as  one." 


i  Translations  of  the  text,  inclusive  of  Rissam's  additions,  are  offered, 
though  of  course  with  many  reservations,  in  English  by  Sayce,  Records  of 
the  Past,  new  series,  vol.  i.,  122  seq.,  and  in  German  by  Jensen,  Kosmologie 
der  Babvlonier,  S.  20S  ff. 


2  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

The  origin  of  the  gods  was  next  narrated,  but  unfort- 
unately the  tablet  is  broken  off  obliquely  at  this  point, 
and  the  ends  of  several  lines  carried  away.  The  rem- 
nants state  that 

"  At  the  time  when  none  of  the  gods  had  been  brought  into  ex- 
istence, 
[When]  a  name  had  not  been  named,  destiny  not  determined, 

Then  were  made  the  gods 

The  gods  Lachmu  and  Lachamu  were  brought  into  existence     . 

And  grew  up 

Anshar  and  Kishar  were  made 

Many  days  passed  by 

God  Ami  [was  then  made) " 

This  portion  of  the  story  has  been  told  in  Greek  by 
the  neo-platonist  Damascins,  who  had  opportunities  for 
learning  it,  if  not  in  the  schools  of  Alexandria  and 
Athens,  at  least  during  his  sojourn  at  the  Persian  court. 
His  version  goes  beyond  the  tablets  in  expressly  stating 
the  material  origin  of  the  gods.  With  omission  of  his 
interpretation,  his  report  is  that 

"The  Babylonians  assumed  two  principles  of  the  universe, 
Tau the  and  Apason  [i.e.,  Tiamat  and  Apsu]  ;  making  Apason  the 
husband  of  Tauthe  and  naming  her  the  mother  of  the  gods.  Of 
these  two  there  was  born  an  only-begotten  son,  Moymis.  From 
these  same  another  generation  proceeded,  Lache  and  Lachos. 
Then  also  from  the  same  [original  pair]  a  third  generation,  Kis- 
sare  and  Assoros ;  from  whom  sprang  Anos,  Illinos,  and  Aos ;  and 
of  Aos  and  Dauke  Belos  was  born,  the  fabricator  of  the  world." 

The  cuneiform  narrative  suffers  a  long  interruption  at 
this  point,  due  to  breakage  and  loss  of  the  tablets. 
When  the  story  is  recovered,  it  appears  that  trouble  has 
arisen  : 

Tiamat  has  done  evil  to  the  gods  and  is  now  their  enemy. 
Lachamu  has  become  her  ally  (iii.,  31  obv.)  and  a  troop  of  hideous 
creatures,  eleven  in  number,  stand  ready  to  assist  her  (iv.,  10G, 


THE   CREATION   OF   THE   UNIVERSE  3 

115).  Ansluir  has  in  vain  sent  god  Ann  [heaven]  to  punish  the  of- 
fenders ;  Ea  [the  waters  of  the  earth]  lias  turned  back  from  the 
mission  aghast  ;  and  finally  Marduk  [the  rising  sun]  has  been 
chosen  as  avenger  and  hailed  as  king. 

The  gods  seat  their  chosen  champion  in  the  princely  chamber, 
and  assign  him  dominion  over  the  universe  (iv.,  1-1),  declare  his 
weapons  irresistible  (1.,  10),  proclaim  his  word  all-powerful,  fur- 
nish him  proof  thereof  (20-2G),  and  bid  him  go  forth  and  slay 
Tiamat  (31). 

Marduk  thereupon  arms  himself;  grasps  a  spear  in  his  right 
hand,  hangs  bow  and  quiver  on  his  side  (37-38),  places  lightning 
in  front  of  him,  fills  his  body  with  flames  ;  he  prepares  a  net  to 
cast  over  the  foe,  takes  in  hand  the  four  winds,  arouses  a  hurri- 
cane, an  evil  wind,  a  storm,  a  tempest,  the  four  winds,  the  seven 
winds,  the  cyclone.  He  sends  forth  the  seven  winds  in  advance 
to  confuse  Tiamat,  while  he  himself  takes  the  storm,  his  great 
weapon,  mounts  his  war  chariot  (50),  and  in  the  sight  of  the  gods 
sets  out  to  meet  the  monster  (CO).  Ho  finds  her  and  challenges 
her  to  buttle  (86).  She  at  once  arms,  and  the  combatants  ap- 
proach. Marduk  spreads  his  net  around  her;  releases  a  hurri- 
cane against  her  which  enters  her  open  mouth  and  prevents  her 
lips  from  closing,  fills  her  body  with  a  strong  wind,  pierces  her 
with  his  spear,  grasps  and  slays  her,  casts  her  body  down  and 
stands  upon  it.  Leaving  the  slain  Tiamat,  he  turns  his  attention 
to  her  hideous  troop,  at  once  routs  them,  pursues,  captures,  and 
binds  them  and  destroys  their  weapons. 

Having  established  Anshar's  superiority  over  the  enemy,  he  re- 
turned to  the  body  of  Tiamat,  cleft  it  in  twain  and  with  oue  half 
overshadowed  the?  heavens  (made  a  covering  for  the  heavens), 
then  shoved  in  a  bolt,  and  also  set  a  watchman  with  orders  not  to 
allow  the  waters  to  stream  forth.  Having  placed  the  heavens  op- 
posite the  watery  abyss,  he  measured  the  latter  and  founded  an 
edifice  like  unto  Ishara,  like  the  palace  Ishara,  which  he  had  built 
as  heaven  ;  and  let  Ann,  Bel,  and  Ea  occupy  their  dwellings. 
Then  he  embellished  the  heavens,  prepared  places  for  the  great 
gods,  made  the  stars,  set  the  zodiac,  founded  a  place  for  Nibint, 
fixed  the  poles  and  opened  gates  provided  with  locks  on  either 
side. 

He  caused  the  moon  to  shine  forth  and  subjected  the  night  to 
it,  he  laid  the  duty  upon  it  every  month  without  fail  to  mark  ofi 
[time]   with  its  crown,  at  the  beginning  of  the  month  to  show 


4  GKNKSIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

boms  on  the  seventh  day  to  reveal  half  the  crown,  on 

the  fourteenth  day  to  stand  opposil 

The  remainder  of  this  tablet  is  too  broken  to  admit  of 
connected  translation. 

more  small  fragment  of  the  series  exists,  but  its 
place  in  the  set  is  not  known  further  than  that,  judged 
by  its  contents,  it  must  follow  those  already  mentioned. 
It  narrates  only  the  creation  of  plants  (possibly  and 
animals.  Any  reference  to  man  it  may  have  contained 
is  broken  off.     According  to  it. 

■  Wh  -  the  _~^ds  in  their  assembly  created,  they  (?\  made  strong 
tree  trunks  (?)  brought  forth  living  [ereajtures  .  .  .  cattle  of 
the  field,  [beasts]  of  the  field,  and  creeping  things.     .     . 

Such  is  the  story  of  creation  as  told  by  the  tablets. 
But.  as  is  well  known,  the  teaching  of  the  Babylonians 
was  also  committed  to  writing  by  Berosus.  priest  of  Bel. 
A  portion  of  the  priest's  account  was  cited  by  Alexander 
Polyhistor  and  quoted  from  his  writings  by  Eusebius 
and  Georgius  Syncellus.  In  these  citations  the  Babylo- 
nian priest  states  that,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  his 
fellow-countrymen. 

"There  was  a  time  when  nothing  existed  but  darkness  and 
water,  wherein  resided  most  hideous  beings  which  were  produced 
of  a  twofokl  principle.  For  men  were  begotten  with  two  wings  : 
some,  moreover,  with  four  wings  and  two  faces  and  having  one 
body,  but  two  heads,  the  one  that  of  a  man,  the  other  that  of  a 
woman,  and  being  in  their  several  organs  both  male  and  female  : 
and  yet  other  men  appeared,  some  with  the  limbs  and  horns  of 
goats,  others  with  the  feet  of  horses,  others  with  the  hind-quarters 
of  a  horse  and  the  body  of  a  man.  resembling  in  shape  the  hippo- 
centaurs.  Bulls  likewise  were  bred  there  with  the  heads  of  men. 
and  dogs  with  four  bodies  terminated  in  their  extremities  with 
the  tails  of  fishes,  and  horses  with  the  heads  of  dogs,  and  men  and 
other  animals  with  the  heads  and  bodies  of  horses  and  the  tails  of 
fishes.  In  short,  there  were  creatures  which  combined  the  shapes 
of  all  sorts  of  animals  :  and  in  addition  to  these  were  fishes,  rep- 


THE   CREATION    OF   THE    UNIVERSE  0 

tiles,  serpents,  and  other  animals  monstrous  and  transformed  in 
that  they  had  each  other's  faces.  Representations  of  these  are 
preserved  in  the  temple  of  Bel. 

"A  woman  presided  over  all  these  by  name  (hum-oka,  which  in 
the  Chaldean  language  is  8a\nTd,]  but  in  Greek  is  interpreted  the 
sea  (BtiXaa-au),  or,  as  it  might  be  equally  well  rendered,  the  moon. 
When  all  things  were  in  this  condition,  Bel  came,  cut  the  woman 
asunder,  of  one  half  of  her  formed  the  earth  and  of  the  other  half 
the  heaveus,  and  destroyed  the  animals  which  were  within  her. 
All  this,  he  says,  was  an  allegorical  description  of  nature  ;  for  the 
whole  universe  consisting  of  moisture  and  animals  having  been 
generated  therein,  the  deity  above  mentioned  removed  his  own 
head,  and  the  other  gods  mixed  the  outflowing  blood  with  earth 
and  formed  men  ;  wherefore  they  are  intelligent  and  partake  of 
divine  thought.  Now  this  Bel,  by  whom  they  signify  Zeus,  cleft 
[as  has  already  been  stated  in  more  allegorical  language]  the  dark- 
ness asunder,  separated  earth  and  heaven  from  each  other,  and 
reduced  the  universe  to  order.  Now  the  [nondescript]  animals, 
since  they  were  not  able  to  endure  the  power  of  the  light,  per- 
ished. Bel  thereupon,  seeing  a  waste  but  fertile  region,  com- 
manded one  of  the  gods  to  remove  his  [Bel's]  head  and  mix  the 
earth  with  the  thence-flowing  blood,  and  form  men  and  beasts 
capable  of  enduring  the  air.  Bel,  moreover,  made  stars  and  sun 
and  moon  and  the  five  planets." 

No  argument  is  needed  to  prove  that  Berosus  and 
Damascius  and  the  scribe  who  wrote  the  tablets  have  the 
same  story  in  mind.  The  fact  is  patent  that  these  tales 
are  outcroppings  of  one  and  the  same  tradition;  a  tradi- 
tion, furthermore,  which  extends  through  many  ages,  and 
whose  traces  may  be  followed  back  into  remote  antiquity. 
The  neo-platonist  philosopher  wrote  his  concise  version 
about  the  year  5G0  after  Christ.  The  priest  Berosus 
penned  his  account  nine  hundred  years  earlier,  in  the 
days  of  Alexander  the  Great ;  but  even  then  tablets  con- 
taining the  cuneiform  account  were  old.  They  had  been 
lying  buried  for  three   centuries  beneath    the  ruins   of 

1  In  uncials  <->  \  \\r<->,  which  Robertson  Smith   happily  conjectures  to  he  a 
misreading  of  wamtk,  l^imln  (ZA.  1891,  S.  339). 


6  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

Nineveh,  having  been  prepared  for  Ashurbanipal  about 
050  years  before  Christ  (colophon  of  fifth  tablet).  But  the 
story  in  some  form  was  current  earlier  still.  The  con- 
flict of  Marduk  and  the  dragon  was  depicted  on  the 
sculptured  mural  slabs  of  the  palace  which  Ashurnatsir- 
pal  built  at  Calah  880  years  before  Christ.  Yet  more 
ancient  was  the  restoration  of  Marduk's  temple  at  Baby- 
lon, which  Agukakrime  undertook.  This  king  reigned 
later  than  1050  B.C.  (Delitzsch,  1883),  or  more  probably 
before  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  B.C.  (Tiele, 
1885;  Bezold,  1886;  Sayce,  1888;  Guide  to  British 
Museum,  1890).  The  royal  restorer  relates  that  he  deco- 
rated the  temple  doors  with  certain  objects  which  he 
names,  and  which  prove  to  be  the  hideous  beings  allied 
with  Tiamat.  Besides  these  more  important  monuments 
of  which  the  date  is  known,  there  are  numerous  undated 
cylinder  seals,  covering  fairly  well  the  entire  period  of 
Assyro-Babylonian  civilization,  engraven  with  various 
scenes  from  the  story  and  revealing  thereby  the  wide 
publicity  and  popularity  of  the  tale.  Jensen  surmises 
an  earlier  date  than  the  earliest  which  has  been  men- 
tioned. He  argues  that  the  progress  of  the  returning 
sun  of  spring  among  the  constellations,  placed  and 
named  as  they  are,  and  its  position  at  the  autumnal 
equinox  repeat  the  story  of  the  conflict  of  Marduk  with 
Tiamat  and  her  allies ;  and  hence  that  the  starry  host 
received  these  names  when  they  occupied  such  a  posi- 
tion with  reference  to  the  sun  that  with  his  appearance 
at  the  vernal  equinox  the  story  began.  This  event,  he 
finds,  was  not  later  than  3000  B.C.,  and  concludes  that 
the  creation  legends  are,  in  part  at  least,  as  old  as  that 
(Kosmologie,  S.  309-320). 

A  tradition  which  was  current  among  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Tigris  and  lower  Euphrates  valleys  for  several 
thousand  years  would   be  known  and   might  perhaps  be 


THE   CREATION   OF  THE    UNIVERSE  7 

entertained  by  people  who  had  been  brought  under  the 
influence  of  Babylonian  culture.     Our  main  interest  iu 

the  Babylonian  tale  centres  in  its  possible  affiliation 
■with  other  cosmogonies,  especially  with  the  Hebrew  ac- 
count of  creation.  Greater  or  less  differences  develop 
themselves  in  a  tradition  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trans- 
mission, a  fact  which  is  abundantly  exemplified  by  the 
variations  of  the  Babylonian  legend  in  Babylonia  itself. 
It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  even  on  the  assump- 
tion of  common  origin,  in  the  Assyjo-l>al ^Ionian  and 
Hebrew  traditions  of  creation,  after  their  subjection 
to  diverse  conditions,  differences  obtrude  themselves. 
There  is  literary  unlikeness.  The  Babylonian  story 
knows  nothing  of  a  division  into  days  (see  Presbyterian 
Review,  vol.  x.,  670  seq.)  ;  whereas  the  Hebrew  account 
is  distributed  within  a  framework  of  six  days.  The  Baby- 
lonian tale,  moreover,  not  only  encumbers  the  plain  nar- 
rative of  creation  with  an  account  of  the  choice  and  ex- 
altation of  a  demiurge  and  of  his  preparation  for  the 
mission,  but  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  highly  figurative 
and  to  the  last  degree  anthropomorphic  ;  the  Hebrew 
story,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  sober  recital  in  simple, 
yet  stately  prose  of  the  impressive  tradition  concerning 
the  development  of  the  ordered  universe  from  chaos.  In 
addition  to  the  marked  literary  contrasts  there  is  a  pro- 
found difference  in  conception.  The  Babylonian  stories 
taken  together  describe  the  primeval  waters  as  sponta- 
neously gem srative  ;  the  Hebrew  account  represents  the 
material  of  the  universe  as  lying  waste  and  lifeless,  and 
as  not  assuming  order  or  becoming  productive  of  life  un- 
til tin1  going  forth  of  the  divine  command.  These  diver- 
gent views  are  allied  with  the  different  theistic  concep- 
tions of  the  two  pcojiles.  On  this  subject  the  fragments 
of  Berosus'  narrative  throw  no  light.  He  is  describing 
the  origin  of  the  ordered  universe  and  assumes  the  ex- 


8  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

istence  of  the  gods,  however  he  may  have  treated  of 
them  in  his  complete  history,  mentioning  them  only 
casually  in  connection  with  their  respective  activities  in 
the  work  of  creation.  The  cuneiform  story  goes  back  to 
a  time  when  the  gods  did  not  exist.  It  depicts  the  pri- 
meval chaos  of  waters  and  proceeds  to  state,  without  de- 
termining the  manner  of  origination,  that  the  gods  came 
into  being  in  successive  periods  of  long  duration  and  in 
the  order  assigned  by  Damaseius.  The  tradition  as  re- 
ported by  the  latter  ascribes  a  material  origin  to  the 
gods  ;  the  primeval  waters  producing  among  others  an 
early  pair  of  deities,  from  which  the  other  gods  were  de- 
scended by  successive  generations — a  conception  which 
is,  perhaps,  allied  to  the  Phoenician  doctrine  that  out  of 
the  material  of  the  universe  were  evolved  sun,  moon, 
stars  and  constellations  which  eventually  arrived  at  con- 
sciousness and  were  called  the  watchers  of  heaven.  In 
the  Hebrew  records,  however,  a  different  theistic  doctrine 
prevails.  God  is  the  creator  of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  the  bringer  into  existence  of  that  which  did  not 
previously  exist.  Before  the  mountains  Avere  brought 
forth,  or  ever  he  had  formed  the  earth  and  the  world, 
even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting  he  is  God.  He  was 
from  the  beginning  or  ever  the  earth  was,  when  there 
were  no  depths,  no  t'homoth,  no  ti'amati  (Prov.  viii. 
22-24). 

But  this  difference  in  conceptions,  diametrically  opposed 
though  these  views  be,  is  explicable  without  denial  of 
kinship  between  the  accounts  so  soon  as  the  divergent 
thought  of  the  two  peoples  is  recalled.  And  two  consid- 
erations leave  no  reasonable  doubt  of  a  relationship  be- 
tween the  two  traditions  :  first,  the  ancient  common  hab- 
itat in  Babylonia  of  the  two  peoples  who  transmitted 
these  accounts ;  and  second,  the  community  of  conception, 
Hebrews  and  Babylonians  uniting  in  describing  the  prim- 


THE   CREATION    OF   THE    IJNIVEESE  9 

itivr  condition  of  the  universe  as  an  abyss  of  waters 
shrouded  in  darkness  and  subsequently  parted  in  twain 
in  order  to  the  formation  of  heaven  and  earth.  The  kin- 
ship between  the  traditions  need  not  be  close,  but  kin- 
ship there  is. 

The  question  then  is,  How  are  these  two  traditions  re- 
lated to  the  original  source  ?  An  answer  is  offered  by 
the  mediation  theory,  which  regards  the  Babylonian  le- 
gend as  intermediate  in  time  and  as  forming  the  connect- 
ing link  between  the  primitive  story  and  its  assumed  He- 
brew modification.  According  to  this  theory,  the  early 
tradition,  ever  changing,  passed  through  the  elaborate 
Babylonian  tale  and  thence  into  the  purified  Hebrew 
form.  The  prevalent  opinion  is  expressed  by  Jensen, 
who  declares  that  "the  end  of  the  fourth  and  the  frag- 
ments of  the  fifth  and  seventh  (?)  tablets,  together  with 
the  beginning  of  the  first,  quite  unquestionably  form  the 
prototype  of  the  biblical  legends  "  (Kosmologie,  S.  304). 
Notice  that,  in  addition  to  the  opening  lines  in  the 
first  tablet  which  depict  the  primitive  condition  of  the 
universe  as  watery  chaos,  the  part  of  the  Babylonian  tale 
which  is  declared  to  form  the  prototype  of  the  biblical 
story  is  that  portion  which  is  taken  up  with  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  work  of  Marduk  as  fabricator  of  the  universe 
(S.  30-1-30G).  The  monotheistic  revisers,  finding  nothing 
objectionable  in  the  conception,  allowed  the  description 
of  the  universe  to  remain,  which  represented  it  as  once 
existing  in  a  state  of  chaotic  waters  enshrouded  in  dark- 
ness. The  story  of  the  origin  of  the  gods,  believers  in 
one  god  necessarily  omitted,  and  took  up  the  tale  again 
with  the  work  of  the  demiurge,  Marduk,  the  />';//>/  bringt  r, 
whom  they  simply  identified  with  the  one  eternal  God. 
Following  the  order  of  the  Babylonian  narrative,  they  next 
related  the  separation  of  the  waters  and  formation  of 
heaven  ;  then  the  gathering  of  the  lower  waters  into  one 


GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

plat  ppearance  of  the  dry  land  ;  then,  depart- 

ing for  a  moment  from  the  Babylonian  order,  the  cloth- 
ing of  earth's  surface  with  vegetation  :  then,  once  more  like 
the  Babylonian  narrative,  the  creation  of  the  heavenly 
Ixxlics  and  the  calling  forth  of  animate  terrestrial  beings. 
The  Babylonian  tale  was  thus,  it  is  claimed,  stripped  of 
all  featmvs  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  monotheism,  re- 
duced to  a  fundamental  though  modified  physical  concep- 
tion, and  transfused  and  glorified  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  God,  creator  and  sovereign  of  the  universe. 

This  mediation  theory,  however,  rests,  we  believe,  on 
a  demonstrable  error.  Contrary  to  the  common  assump- 
tion, the  Hebrew  narrative  is  not  chiefly,  if  it  is  at  all. 
reflected  in  the  Marduk  section  of  the  cuneiform  story. 
but  in  the  first  tablet  and  in  Damascius.  It  shines  con- 
spicuously in  the  lineage  which  is  assigned  to  the  gods 
by  these  authorities,  for  the  genealogical  succession  of 
the  gods  is  the  creational  order  of  the  natural  obj<  bs 
which  they  were  supposed  to  animate.  Damascius.  it 
will  be  remembered,  reports  the  Babylonian  belief  that 
at  first  there  were  two  principles  of  the  universe,  viz.. 
the  two  primeval  waters  :  from  which,  as  from  parents, 
sprang  not  only  Moymis  and  the  gods  Laehniu  and 
Lachamu,  but  also  two  others,  related  as  children  of  the 
same  generation,  Kishar  and  Anshar,  which  being  in- 
terpreted mean  the  comprehensive  heavens  above  and 
the  comprehensive  earth  beneath  ;  and  of  these  in  turn 
came  a  group  of  three — Ann.  heaven,  and  Ulinos.  earth's 
surface,  and  Ea.  the  terrestrial  waters;  and  the  son  of 
the  latter,  so  called  because  rising  daily  from  that  god's 
abode,  the  ocean,  was  Bel  [Marduk],  the  sun.  whom  the 
Babylonians  say  is  the  demiurge.  Evidently  if  for  these 
divinities  there  be  substituted  the  natural  objects  which 
the  divine  names  signify,  an  orderly  statement  is  ren- 
dered, like  that  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  of  the  physical 


THE   CREATION    OF   THE    UNIVERSE  I  1 

development  of  the  universe.  A  similar  doctrine  per- 
meates the  native  literature.  According  to  the  monu- 
ments (iur,  /.' .  Apsu,  the  primeval  ocean,  was  "the 
mother,  the  bearer  of  heaven  and  earth  "  (II  R.,  5-4,  1 S 
ASKT.,  76,  15/16),  "the  mother  of  Ann  and  the  gods" 
(Ancient  History  from  the  Monuments:  Babylonia,  p. 
Of),  note;  RP.,  vol.  ix.,  146,  64,  note).  Of  these'  Ann,  Bel, 
/'.' .  lllil  or  "IWivo*;,  and  Ea  constituted  a  triad,  the  su- 
preme one  in  the  Assyrian  pantheon.  And  of  Ea  and 
his  consort  D.  idna,  i.e.  Dauke  (II  R.,  55,  53d),  "the 
king  and  queen  of  the  watery  deep  "  ill  ![.,  55,  24c.d.), 
was  born  Marduk  (II  R.,  55,  64d). 

The  account  as  transmitted  by  the  first  tablet  does 
not  expressly  publish  the  descent  of  the  gods  from  the 
primeval  waters,  as  does  Damascins,  though  traces  of 
a  traditional  genealogy  are  contained  in  the  later  tablets 
of  the  series  in  allusions  to  the  gods  as  the  fathers  or 
ancestors  of  Marduk.  It  does,  however,  purport  to  give 
the  chronological  order  in  which  the  gods  came  into  ex- 
istence. It  pictures  a  primitive  chaos  of  waters,  and 
then  proceeds  to  relate  the  origin  of  the  deities  ;  teaches, 
like  Damascins,  that  Lachmn  and  Lachanm.  whoever 
they  may  have  been  and  who  later  became  involved  with 
Tiamat,  came  into  existence  and  grew  up  ;  that  Anshar 
and  Kishar— in  other  words  that  heaven  and  earth  in  tin- 
widest  meaning  of  these  terms,  namel}',  all  above  and  all 
below  were  formed  ;  that  after  a  long  period  Ann,  the 
spirit  of  the  heavens  proper,  and  Bel,  the  surface  of  the 
earth,  and  Ea,  the  terrestrial  waters,  were  made.1  Here 
again  the  substitution  for  the  gods  of  the  natural  ob- 
jects which  their  names  signify  and  which  they  were  be- 
lieved to  animate  yields  a  correct  chronological  account 
of  the  physical  development  of  the  universe.  In  the 
light  of  this  evidence,  the  story  which  the  tablets,  espe- 

1  Last  two  Dames  restored  from  context  and  Damascins. 


12  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

cially  in  their  opening  sentences,  tell,  and  which  they  re- 
veal later  between  the  lines,  is  not  in  its  germ  a  sun 
myth — although  it  has  unfolded  into  or  been  engrafted 
on  a  sun  myth  (cp.  Sayce,  Hibbert  Lectures,  1887,  p. 
393) — but  it  is  the  deformed  outgrowth  of  an  earlier  phy- 
sical doctrine  of  the  origin  of  the  universe. 

It  may  be  read  later  between  the  lines  of  the  Marduk 
section,  we  say  ;  for  it  is  legible  in  Marduk's  inferior  rank 
and  in  the  actual  place  assigned  to  him  in  the  pantheon. 
The  Babylonian  religion  was  a  nature  worship  according 
to  which  natural  objects  were  regarded  as  animated. 
Yet  Marduk,  the  rising  sun,  who  in  earliest  times  was 
represented  as  destroyer  of  Tiamat,  framer  of  heaven 
and  earth  and  seas,  and  constructor  of  the  abodes  of  the 
gods,  was  not  originally  worshipped  as  father  of  the  gods, 
the  first  in  order  of  time,  the  head  of  the  pantheon,  but 
as  a  subordinate  deity  ;  and  when  at  a  late  period  he 
was  admitted  into  the  number  of  the  great  gods,  it  was 
as  occupant  of  a  humble  position.  To  this  fact  the  story 
of  creation  as  told  by  the  tablets — and  in  a  part  which 
is  traceable  to  the  earliest  times — bears  witness.  The 
king  of  the  gods  is  Anshar;  he  sends  Ami  to  subdue 
Tiamat,  and  on  Anu's  failure  employs  Ea ;  and  not  until 
the  god  of  terrestrial  waters  proves  unable  does  Anshar 
turn  to  Marduk  as  a  last  resort.  It  is  only  after  this 
commission  has  been  announced  that  Marduk  is  led  into 
the  princely  chamber  by  the  gods,  who  are  called  his  an- 
cestors, and  there  endued  with  might  and  invested  with 
dominion  over  the  universe  (iv.  14).  This  peculiarity 
is  not  accidental,-  but  significant.  The  explanation  is 
found  in  the  underlying  cosmological  theory :  Marduk's 
birth  immediately  followed  that  of  the  triad  of  deities, 
Anu  (heaven),  Bel  (earth),  and  Ea  (house  of  terrestrial 
water).  The  universe  had  in  part  developed  before 
Marduk  came  into  being  ;    his  rank  coincides  with  his 


THE   CREATION    OF   THE    QNTVERSE  13 

place  in  unfolding  cosmos,  and  the  order  in  which  the 
gods  one  after  another  are  sent  forth  to  battle,  the  reli- 
ance which  is  placed  in  Marduk's  predecessors  before  he 
is  appealed  to  for  help,  likewise  correspond  broadly  to 
the  chronological  succession  of  the  gods  as  determined 
by  the  creative  order  of  the  natural  objects  which  they 
represent.  Thus  even  the  Marduk  section  of  the  crea- 
tion story,  liotw  ithstanding  its  representation  of  that  god 
as  a  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  seems  in  reality  to  pre- 
suppose a  somewhat  advanced  stage  in  the  formation  of 
the  universe  before  his  offices  are  called  into  requisition. 
With  this  elucidation  in  mind,  the  cuneiform  story  as 
a  whole  should  be  reviewed.  The  tale  begins  with  the 
statement  that  at  first  the  primeval  waters  lay  mingled 
together,  and  eventually  became  the  begetter  and  bearer 
of  heaven  and  earth.  Deities  came  into  existence  :  first 
Lachmu  and  Lachamu ;  then,  after  a  considerable  peri- 
od, all  above  and  all  below  ;  after  lapse  of  other  years, 
heaven,  earth's  surface,  and  terrestrial  waters  ;  finally, 
Marduk,  the  rising  sun.1  But  Tiamat,  the  watery  abyss, 
resisted  the  unfolding  order  and  infringed  the  divine 
command,  probably  by  her  continual  endeavor  to  con- 
found earth  and  heaven  and  sea.  The  nightly  darkness 
obscuring  the  regions  of  the  universe  and  enveloping  all 
nature  in  the  primeval  shroud,  the  dense  mists  reuniting 
at  times  the  waters  of  heaven  and  earth,  continued  rains 
when  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened  and  the  foun- 
tains of  the  great  deep  broken  up,  which  threatened  to 
deluge  the  earth  and  again  convert  the  celestial  and  ter- 
restrial waters  into  the  one  vast  original  ocean,  suggested 
a  possible  return  to  chaos  ;  yea,  told  these  Babylonians 
who  believed  in  the  existence  of  animate  beings  back  of 

1  Compare  the  Phcenician  tradition  that  the  heavenly  bodies  were  spon- 
taneously developed  from  the  chaotic  mass  of  matter  and  in  process  of  time 
arrived  at  consciousness. 


14  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TUADITION 

every  natural  object,  of  a  determined  struggle  on  the 
part  of  Tiamat  to  reduce  all  things  to  primitive  disorder ; 
while  the  black  clouds  and  vapors  of  fantastic  shape,  the 
angry  muttcrings  of  thunder  and  the  fierce  tornado 
evoked  in  their  superstitious  minds  the  conception  of  a 
brood  of  horrid  creatures,  offspring  and  abettors  of  Ti- 
amat, allied  with  their  cruel  progenitress  in  bitter  war- 
fare against  the  established  order  of  the  universe.  These 
foes,  which  the  Babylonians  discerned  in  darkness  and 
fog  and  storm,  the  deity  of  the  comprehensive  heavens, 
Anshar,  attempted  in  vain  to  overcome.  Ea,  lord  of 
earthly  Avaters,  availed  still  less.  Finally  Marduk,  the 
rising  sun,  was  sent.  A  fearful  storm  was  the  result 
(Tablet  iv.,  45  seq.),  but  the  god  of  the  rising  sun  dis- 
pelled the  darkness,  scattered  the  hideously  shaped 
clouds,  lifted  the  vapors  in  masses  on  high,  subdued  the 
tempest,  reopened  the  space  between  heaven  and  earth, 
revealed  the  blue  firmament,  cleared  a  pathway  for  the 
starry  host,  brought  to  light  the  earth  and  dried  its  sur- 
face, awoke  animal  and  vegetable  life. 

The  story  in  its  developed  form  is  an  exaltation  of  the 
sun.  The  events  which  preceded  the  sun's  appearance 
are  recognized ;  but  being  apart  from  the  plan  are  not 
dwelt  upon.  Moreover,  in  course  of  time,  with  the 
growth  of  the  mythological  conception  and  the  conse- 
quent partial  concealment  of  the  germ  of  the  tale,  there 
ultimately  developed  a  story  which  ascribed  to  the  hero 
Marduk  results  which,  even  in  Babylonian  thought,  were 
in  nowise  due  to  the  sun's  agency  (cp.  Jensen,  Kosmolo- 
gie,  S.  309). 

Compare  with  this  Babylonian  story  the  account  which 
the  Israelites  transmitted.  A  striking  feature  of  the 
Hebrew  narrative  is  its  symmetry.  While  by  necessity 
a  natural  sequence  of  events  is  observed,  the  principle  of 
grouping  prevails.     Creative  acts,  so  distinct  as  to  be  in- 


THE  CREATIOH    OF   THE    UNIVERSE  l.r> 

fcroduced  by  the  recurring  formula,  "  God  said,  Let  tliere 
be,"  and  dismissed  by  the  statement,  "God  saw  that  it 
was  good;"  creative  acts  so  diverse  as  is  making  from 
creating,  or  as  is  the  gift  of  life  from  the  mere  separa- 
tion of  the  material  elements,  are  in  several  instances 
grouped  in  one  and  the  same  period,  as  in  the  first,  third, 
fifth,  and  sixth  days.  Again,  the  motionless  objects  are 
grouped  as  the  works  of  the  first  three  days,  and  the 
moving  objects — or  those  which  appear  to  move — the 
works  of  the  last  three  days.  Still  again,  the  respective 
periods  of  these  two  great  divisions  offset  each  other : 
the  creation  of  light  on  the  first  day  corresponds  to  the 
making  of  the  heavenly  luminaries  on  the  first  day  of 
the  second  division  ;  the  parting  of  waters  by  a  firmament 
on  the  second  day,  to  the  calling  forth  of  animate  beings 
in  the  waters  and  in  front  of  the  firmament  on  the  same 
day  of  the  second  division;  the  appearance  of  dry  land 
and  of  vegetation  on  the  third  day,  to  the  land  animals 
and  the  appointment  of  herbs  for  their  food  on  the  third 
day  of  the  second  division.  This  distribution  of  the  vari- 
ous works  of  creation  is  not  arbitrary,  but  logically 
determined  ;  it  is  based  on  the  relations  of  these  objects 
the  one  to  the  other,  and  it  exhibits  the  true  character 
and  progress  and  purpose  of  creation. 

Of  course  the  conclusion  "would  be  unwarranted  that 
this  symmetry  is  necessarily  artificial;  but  the  theory 
that  it  is  the  result  of  intentional  arrangement  is  plausi- 
ble and  has  been  adopted  and  advocated  by  leading  in- 
terpreters. If  entertained,  its  bearing  upon  another 
question  must  not  be  overlooked.  If  it  be  true  that  the 
material  has  been  arranged,  it  follows  that  while  the 
natural  sequence  of  events  has  in  a  measure  been  re- 
tained in  the  narrative,  chronology  has  been  subordi- 
nated ;  it  has  been  either  intentionally  ignored  or  at 
least  only  so  far  regarded  as  that  the  works  of  creation, 


1G  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

which  may  have  had  their  beginning  in  a  prior  period, 
have  been  recounted  in  the  order  of  their  "  day  "  or 
period  of  prominence,  not  in  the  order  of  their  coming 
into  existence. 

What,  then,  is  meant  by  the  much-discussed  days  of 
the  Hebrew  tradition  ;  for  so  far  as  yet  appears  they 
are  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  transmission  ?  '  Under  the 
teaching  of  God,  they  are  the  accurate  and  admirable 
classification  of  the  works  of  creation  under  six  divi- 
sions ;  six  distinct  groups  of  deeds  followed  by  cessa- 
tion from  creative  activity,  for  the  end  and  ideal  of  crea- 
tion had  been  attained.  And  in  view  of  the  sacredness 
which  was  conventionally  attached  to  the  number  seven, 
even  by  the  authorized  teachers  of  Israel,  seven  sections 
were  peculiarly  appropriate  in  a  narrative  of  God's 
works.  And  these  sections  are  called  days.  It  is  to  be 
admitted  that  these  expressions  can,  on  purely  linguistic 
grounds,  be  interpreted  as  ordinary  days,  which,  taken 
together,  form  a  week  of  seven  times  twenty-four  hours. 
It  is  also  to  be  admitted  that,  on  literary  grounds,  these 
terms  can  be  interpreted  as  days,  marked  by  the  alterna- 
tion of  light  and  darkness,  but  not  consecutive.  The 
several  days  are  the  respective  points  of  time  when  God 
issued  his  decrees.  No  stringent  reason  compels  belief 
that  this  same  writer  would  teach  that  there  were  ten 
generations  and  no  more  from  Adam  to  Noah  and  from 
Stem  to  Abraham  ;  and  certainly  Matthew  neither  be- 
lieved nor  would  teach  that  the  generations  from  Abra- 
ham to  David  and  from  David  to  the  captivity  and  from 
the  captivity  to  Christ  were  in  every  case  consecutive 
and  in  each  group  were  fourteen  and  no  more.  Perhaps 
the  Hebrew  writer  is  pursuing  the  same  plan  when  he 
describes  the  six  groups  of  creative  deeds  as  the  works 
of  six  several  days,  and  adds  thereto  the  seventh  day  of 

1  The  Etruscan  story  is  of  course  not  forgotten. 


THE   CREATION   OF   THE    UN1VER8E  17 

divine  rest ;  thus  making,  when  taken  together,  a  com- 
plete week  and  a  heavenly  example  to  men  of  labor  and 
repose.  Still  again  it  is  to  be  admitted  with  Driver, 
Delitzsch,  and  a  host  of  other  distinguished  scholars, 
that  "  the  writer  may  have  consciously  used  the  term 
[day)  figuratively,"  for  the  words  day  and  week  were  un- 
questionably  employed  by  the  Hebrews  with  latitude.  It 
has,  indeed,  been  argued  that  the  periphrastic  division 
of  the  day  into  two  halves  bounded  by  evening  and 
morning  is  conclusive  proof  that  an  ordinary  day  of 
twenty-four  hours  is  meant  (Dillmann)  ;  but  if  day  is 
used  limuatively,  evening  and  morning  must  likewise  be, 
and  accordingly  the  answer  has  been  well  returned  that 
evening  may  mean  "  the  time  when  the  Creator  brought 
his  work  [temporarily]  to  a  close,  and  morning  the  time 
when  the  creative  activity  began  anew "  (Delitzsch). 
Each  period  of  creative  activity  was  followed  by  one  of 
inactivity,  corresponding  to  night  when  man  works  not ; 
and  when  creation  was  complete,  when  the  ideal  which 
God  had  set  before  him  had  been  attained,  when  all  had 
been  pronounced  very  good,  God  entered  upon  his  long 
and  as  yet  unended  Sabbath  of  cessation  from  creative 
work,  or,  as  the  writer  himself  significantly  phrases  it, 
from  "  work  which  God  made  in  a  creative  manner." 

Three  interpretations  of  the  term  day  are  accordingly 
in  themselves  admissible,  and  we  are  constrained  to  join 
others  in  saying  with  Augustine:  "What  kind  of  days 
these  were  it  is  extremely  difficult  or  perhaps  impossible 
for  us  to  conceive  and  how  much  more  to  say  !  "  (De  civ. 
Dei,  xi.,  6).  A  breadth  of  statement  is  employed  by  the 
author  which  is  usual  with  biblical  writers  when  setting 
forth  the  subordinate  elements  of  their  doctrine  and 
which  renders  the  teaching  of  Scripture  broader  than 
the  varying  conceptions  which  man  in  different  ages  en- 
tertains. 

2 


18  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

The  writer's  own  conception,  not  of  day,  but  of  the 
time  occupied  in  bringing  the  world  into  its  present  con- 
dition, may  be  ascertained,  if  not  with  certainty,  at  least 
with  probability.  The  plausibility  of  the  theory  that  ho 
subordinates  time  to  arrangement  has  already  been  men- 
tioned. Add  to  that  the  litting  omission  of  the  definite 
article  from  the  enumeration  of  the  periods  :  day  one, 
day  second,  daj^  third,  day  fourth,  day  fifth,  and,  to  judge 
from  the  versions,  day  sixth  ;  leaving  the  expressions  in 
themselves  indefinite,  which  is  not  customary  when,  as 
here,  ordinals  are  used  and  the  days  of  an  ordinary 
week-period  are  numbered  (Num.  xxix.  17,  20,  23,  etc.  ; 
Neh.  viii.  [2],  13,  18;  cp.  Num.  vii.  12,  etc.,  et  pass.). 
The  method  of  enumeration  employed  is  suitable  for  ex- 
hibiting a  relation  between  the  groups  which  the  writer 
would  not  narrowly  define  ;  and  accordingly  he  speaks  of 
a  second  day,  a  third  day,  etc.  Add  further  the  Semitic 
tradition  which  has  been  preserved  in  the  Babylonian 
version  that  the  successive  stages  in  the  development  of 
the  ordered  universe  occupied  long  periods  of  untold 
duration,  and  the  presumption  becomes  strong  that  the 
Hebrew  writer  likewise  conceived  of  the  creation  period, 
not  as  seven  times  twenty-four  hours,  but  as  vastly,  in- 
definitely long. 

So  much  for  the  style  and  for  the  framework  of  the  He- 
brew tradition.  Now  as  to  its  contents.  The  cosmology 
underlying  the  Hebrew  account,  apart  from  its  theology, 
is  that  at  first  there  was  a  chaos  :  called  the  earth,  be- 
cause the  heavens  had  not  yet  been  detached  from  the 
mass,  and  because  it  contained  all  the  elements  out  of 
which  the  universe  was  formed  ;  called  also  the  great 
deep,  or  tliom,  because  existing  in  watery  or  fluid  state. 
This  mass  of  material  was  shrouded  in  darkness.  Then 
light  was  created.  All  accounts,  Babylonian  and  He- 
brew, presuppose  the  existence  of  light  before  the  sun. 


THE   CREATION    OF  THE    (JNIVERSE  10 

The  idea  was  familiar  to  the  ancients,  being  found  among 
the  Aryans  east  and  west  as  well  as  among  the  Semites. 
The  doctrine  is  true  ;  the  causes  were  of  old  at  work 
which  make  the  light  of  myriad  suns  and  render  our 
own  oil)  of  day  luminous.  Then  the  blue  vault  called 
the  firmament  parted  the  primeval  waters,  dividing  the 
fluid  heavens  from  the  fluid  earth.  The  latter  watery 
body  is  next  described  as  undergoing  change;  it  was 
separated  into  seas  and  dry  land,  and  the  land  clothed 
with  verdure.  As  yet,  however,  notwithstanding  the  al- 
lusion to  vegetation,  no  mention  has  been  made  of  the 
creation  of  the  sun.  In  this  the  Hebrew  departs  from 
the  Babylonian  order  of  narration,  which  tells  of  the  for- 
mation of  the  sun  and  stars  immediately  after  that  of 
earth  and  before  any  allusion  lias  been  made  to  vegeta- 
tion. The  explanation  maybe  found  either  in  the  au- 
thor's intention  to  teach  that  vegetation  preceded  the 
sun's  formation  or  at  least  the  sun's  appearance  through 
the  mists,  or  else  in  his  method  of  grouping  already 
described.  It  may  be  that  the  author,  without  intend- 
ing to  teach  the  priority  of  vegetation  to  the  sun's  light 
and  heat,  having  narrated  the  gathering  together  of  the 
terrestrial  waters  and  the  appearance  of  dry  land,  wished 
to  preserve  the  determined  symmetry  of  his  account  and 
to  complete  the  present  picture  by  telling  of  the  verdure 
which  forthwith  covered  the  earth,  and  which  in  reality 
forms  one  stage  with  the  ground  in  the  earth's  develop- 
ment. It  may  be  added  in  passing  that  perhaps  no  man 
to  this  day  knows  whether  vegetation  delayed  until  the 
sun  had  thrown  off  the  planets  which  are  within  the 
earth's  orbit  and  had  assumed  its  present  dimensions, 
or  whether  herbage  appeared  long  before.  Proceeding 
now  to  the  movable  bodies,  the  Hebrew  narrator  first 
describes  those  which  pass  in  solemn  procession  across 
the  sky — the  sun,  moon,  and  stars.     Then  he  depicts  as 


20  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

a  succeeding  day  the  time  when  fish  swarmed  in  the 
waters,  and  fowl  flew  in  the  heaven,  when  the  lower  ani- 
mals reached  great  development  and  dominated  the  earth. 
He  pictures  next  the  day  of  the  land  animals,  made  of 
the  earth,  higher  in  order  of  being  than  fish  or  fowl,  at- 
taining to  prominence  and  dominion  after  the  reign  of 
aquatic  and  aerial  animals,  and  culminating  in  man, 
created  in  the  same  manner  as  were  they,  ruling  at  the 
same  time  with  them  on  earth,  but  made  in  the  divine 
image  and  commissioned  to  subdue  the  earth  to  himself 
and  reign  supreme  among  its  creatures. 

The  outcroppings  of  the  Semitic  tradition  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  as  they  come  to  light  on  the  Tigris  and 
the  lower  Euphrates  and  in  Palestine,  reveal  a  diverging 
trend  in  southern  Mesopotamia.  The  original  tradition, 
discoverable  even  beneath  the  distortions  to  which  it 
was  subjected  by  polytheism,  represented  a  primitive 
condition  of  the  universe  consisting  of  chaotic  waters 
enveloped  in  darkness ;  a  separation  of  these  so-called 
waters  into  two  divisions,  the  great  above  and  the  great 
beneath  ;  the  clear  distinction,  later,  of  these  into  heaven 
above  and  land  and  ocean  beneath.  Under  the  influence 
of  animistic  nature  worship,  however,  this  fundamental 
physical  doctrine  was  perverted.  The  divisions  of  the 
universe  were  severally  assigned  a  spirit  and  deified  ; 
consequently  the  original  teaching  of  the  orderly  de- 
velopment of  the  material  universe  became  in  allegory 
the  genealogy  of  the  gods.  At  the  point  where  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  sun  was  noted,  the  tradition  diverged 
still  more.  The  worshippers  of  the  one  true  God,  pre- 
serving both  the  physical  doctrine  and  the  sublime  truth 
behind  it,  told  of  the  appearance,  at  God's  command, 
of  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  of  animate  beings  in  sea  and 
air,  of  beasts  on  earth  and  of  man  in  the  divine  image. 
The  Assy ro-Baby Ionian  adorers  of  nature,  on  the  other 


THE   CREATION    OF   THE   UNIVERSE  21 

baud,  worshipping  the  sun,  hail  him  as  offspring  of 
ocean's  lord  and  lady,  because  going  forth  daily  from  the 
sea,  laud  him  as  the  restorer  and  preserver  of  order  and 
the  awakener  of  life  ;  yea,  they  exalt  him  at  length  to  the 
rank  of  creator,  and  in  their  fervor  ascribe  to  him  the 
completion  of  the  universe.  The  physical  doctrine,  which 
is  the  substratum  of  the  tradition,  has  been  preserved  in 
the  Hebrew  transmission.  The  deification  of  nature  and 
the  glorification  of  tin;  sun  are  polytheistic  amplifica- 
tions. The  Hebrew  account  is  the  intentional  perpetua- 
tion of  the  basal  doctrine  of  the  origin  of  the  universe. 

And  now  allow  the  eye  to  sweep  in  rapid  survey  over 
the  literature  of  antiquity.  Cosmological  theories  enter- 
tained by  the  peoples  who  were  akin  or  neighbor  or  by 
commerce  and  conquest  bound  to  the  Babylonians,  As- 
syrians, and  Hebrews  come  to  light.  In  Etruria  and 
Greece,  in  Persia,  India,  Egypt,  and  Phoenicia  cosmogo- 
nies arc  found  which  bear  resemblances  to  the  Semitic 
tradition ;  concurring  with  it  not  in  the  accidents  of 
literary  form  and  mythological  fancies,  but  in  the  es- 
sential of  physical  doctrine.  For  the  most  part  they,  too, 
like  the  Babylonian  tale,  find  a  place  for  the  sun  and  ex- 
aggerate his  agency  ;  and  yet  not  one  is  a  sun  myth. 
The  exact  relationship  of  these  cosmogonies  to  the  Semit- 
ic tradition  cannot  as  yet  be  finally  determined  ;  but  ail 
confirmation  which,  with  increasing  knowledge  of  ancient 
thought,  shall  accrue  that  these  teachings  have  a  com- 
mon origin  with  the  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  transmis- 
sion is  additional  proof  that  the  genealogy  of  the  gods  is 
a  distortion  and  the  sun  mj'th  an  amplification  of  the 
primitive  tradition. 

These  national  traditions  show  more.  They  show  that 
the  original  doctrine  was  never  wholly  lost  sight  of  by 
mankind  at  large.  It  was  an  influential  presence  in  hu- 
man thought.     But  especially  among  the  ancient  Baby- 


22  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

lonians  was  the  primitive  tradition  apprehended  despite 
its  perversion ;  for  the  same  agencies  which  distorted 
worked  also  to  preserve  it.  The  early  doctrine  of  the 
more  or  less  vital  relation  between  the  gods  and  the 
natural  objects  whose  names  they  bore  and  which  they 
inhabited,  a  doctrine  which  had  converted  the  account  of 
the  physical  development  of  the  universe  into  the  genea- 
logical descent  of  the  gods,  must  act  in  the  opposite  di- 
rection; the  genealogy  of  the  gods  must  be  ever  readily 
reconvertible  into  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth.  Whenever,  then,  this  primitive,  ever-discernible, 
and  imperishable  teaching  of  the  origin  of  the  universe 
was  held  by  monotheists,  it  was  formulated  essentially 
as  is  the  doctrine  in  the  opening  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Genesis. 


n 

THE   SABBATH 

Eighteen  years  ago  Mr.  Fox  Talbot,  one  of  the  first 
successful  translators  of  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  an- 
nounced to  the  public  his  opinion  that  in  the  fifth  tablet 
of  the  creation  series  the  Babylonians  clearly  affirmed 
"  the  origin  of  the  Sabbath  "  to  have  been  "  coeval  with 
creation."  He  found  on  that  tablet  these  remarkable 
lines  : 

"Every  month  without  fail  he  [i.e.   God]  made  holy  assembly- 
days. 

On  the  seventh  day  he  appointed  a  holy  day 
And  to  cease  from  all  business  ho  commanded." 
(BP.,  vol.  ix.,  117,  118;  cp.  TSBA.,  vol.  v.,  428.) 

Increased  knowledge  of  the  Assyrian  vocabulary  has, 
however,  made  it  certain  that  the  version  given  by  the 
eminent  translator  is  inaccurate  at  crucial  points.  The 
word  agfi>,  which  he  boldly  guessed  to  mean  holy  assem- 
bly-day (thinking  of  the  Hebrew  chag),  is  now  known  to 
signify  a  crown  or,  as  Jensen  prefers  to  describe  it,  a  royal 
cap;  and  the  passage  proves  to  be  a  description,  not  of 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  but  of  the  moon's  changes. 
A  translation  which  is  nearer  to  the  sense  of  the  original 
is  : 

"  He  caused  the  moon  to  shine  forth,  he  subjected  the  night  to  it, 
He  made  it  known  as  an  object  of  the  night.     In  order  to  make 

known  the  days 
Every  month  without  fail  mark  off  [time  (?)  ]  with  the  crown  ; 


24  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

At  the  beginning  of  the  month,  on  rising  at  evening, 
Horns  thou  dost  show  in  order  to  make  known  the  heaven, 
On  the  seventh  day  the  crown " 

About  the  time  that  this  text  came  to  light,  a  discov- 
ery was  made  which  has  awakened  wide  interest.  The 
phrase  "day  of  rest  of  heart,"  as  the  words  have  been 
translated,  was  found  in  an  Assyrian  vocabulary  and  by 
its  side  its  synonym  was  given  as  Sltahattu.  This  fact  nat- 
urally attracted  attention.  But  it  was  early  abused. 
Without  any  warrant  save  that  of  plausibility  to  justify 
the  procedure,  it  was  combined  with  a  peculiar  feature 
of  a  ritualistic  calendar,  which  is  presently  to  be  men- 
tioned, and  the  announcement  was  published — not  as  a 
conjecture,  but  as  a  fact — that  the  word  Sabbath  was 
known  to  the  Assyrians,  was  the  name  given  to  the  sev- 
enth, fourteenth,  nineteenth,  twenty-first,  and  twenty- 
eighth  day  of  each  month,  and  was  "  explained  as  'a  day 
of  rest  for  the  heart'"  (Sa}^ce,  Academy,  Nov.,  1875,  p. 
554,  Babylonian  Literature,  p.  55 ;  Schrader,  KAT3., 
S.  18  ft*.  ;  Tiele,  Babylonisch-assyrische  Geschichte,  S. 
550).  But  these  statements  are  bold  assumptions.  The 
pronunciation  of  the  word  as  Shabatfu  is  not  quite  cer- 
tain. The  signs  which  compose  it  may  be  so  read ;  but 
they  may  likewise  be  pronounced  Shabetu  or  Shamiitu  or 
Shapattu.  One  reading  is  as  likely  as  another.  There 
is  no  inherent  reason  for  a  preference.  Shabattu  has 
been  adopted  solely  because  it  is  a  suitable  synonym  of 
the  phrase  "  day  of  rest  of  heart."  But  here,  again,  a 
question  must  be  raised.  The  phrase  nuch  libbi,  which 
has  been  translated  "rest  of  heart,"  is  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  Assyrian  literature  in  this  form  or  a  variation  of 
it,  being  employed  to  signify  the  appeasing  of  the  heart 
of  the  gods.  This  meaning  must  be  retained  in  the  pas- 
sage under  discussion  unless  other  facts  come  to  light 
(cp.  Jensen,  ZA.,  vol.  iv.,  274).     The  utmost  that  this 


THE  SABBATH  25 

oel< '1  Mated  line  yields  is  that  a  day  of  propitiation  was 
possibly  called  Sabbath.  From  aught  that  appears,  it 
WBS  neither  a  day  of  rest  nor  the  reclining  seventh  day, 
but  any  season  devoted  to  appeasing  an.  angry  god. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  a  ritualistic  calendar.  The 
first  tablet  of  the  kind  was  discovered  in  the  year  1869 
by  that  enthusiastic  Assyriologist  of  former  days,  Mr. 
George  Smith,  while  at  work  npon  the  heap  of  miscel- 
laneous fragments  of  clay  and  stone  tablets  which  had 
come  into  possession  of  the  British  Museum  (Assyrian 
Discoveries,  p.  12).  It  was  a  religious  calendar  for  the 
intercalary  month  of  second  Elul,  and  indicated  for  each 
day  in  succession  the  deity  of  the  day,  the  festival  to  bo 
celebrated,  the  offerings  to  be  made,  and  occasionally  the 
proper  deportment  of  men.  But  these  regulations  were 
not  peculiar  to  intercalary  Elul.  In  their  maiu  provi- 
sions they  were  common  to  all  the  months  of  the  year. 
Numerous  similar  tablets  have  come  to  light  which  show 
that  the  corresponding  days  of  the  various  months  were 
distinguished  by  the  same  festivals,  the  same  commands, 
and  the  same  prohibitions. 

The  feature  which  lends  to  these  calendars  their  great 
interest  is  the  special  notice  taken  of  the  recurring 
seventh  day.  On  the  seventh,  fourteenth,  nineteenth, 
twenty-first,  and  twenty-eighth  day  of  each  month  certain 
acts  are  forbidden.  The  prohibitions  are  the  same  for 
each  of  these  days.     The  law  was  this  : 

"  The  seventh  day,  a  festival  of  the  god  Marduk  and  the  god- 
dess Zarpanitu.1  A  propitious  day.  [Nevertheless]  an  unlucky 
day  :  the  shepherd  of  many  nations  shall  not  eat  meat 2  which  has 
been  cooked  on  the  fire  .  .  .  ,  the  raiment  of  his  body  he 
shall  not  change,  nor  put  on  clean  clothing,  nor  make  a  libation  ; 
the  king  shall  not  ride  in  his  chariot  nor  speak  as  a  ruler  ;  the 

•The  deities  are  different  on  each  of  the  recurring  seventh  days. 
2  "  Anything,"  nineteenth  day. 


26  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

priest  shall  not  carry  on  a  conversation  in  a  secret  place  ;  the  seer 
shall  not  lay  his  hand  on  the  sick,  nor  stretch  it  forth  to  call 
down  a  curse.  At  night '  in  the  presence  of  god  Marduk  and  god- 
dess Ishtar  the  king  shall  make  his  offering,  pour  out  his  liba- 
tion ;  the  lifting  up  of  his  hands  unto  god  will  be  acceptable." 

How  striking  is  the  resemblance  to  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath !  The  shepherd  of  many  nations — the  proud  title 
in  Babylonia  and  Assyria  of  the  grand  monarch  who 
swayed  his  sceptre  over  a  vast  empire  of  mixed  and  sub- 
jugated peoples— the  shepherd  of  many  nations  is  warned 
not  to  eat  cooked  meat  on  the  recurring  seventh  day ; 
and  it  was  a  statute  in  Israel  that  the  people  should 
neither  bake,  nor  seethe,  nor  kindle  a  fire  throughout 
their  habitations  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the  man  who 
gathered  sticks  in  the  wilderness  on  that  day  was  stoned 
(Ex.  xvi.  23  ;  xxxv.  3  ;  Num.  xv.  32-36).  The  Assyrian 
king  is  warned  not  to  ride  in  his  chariot  on  the  seventh 
day,  and  the  Jews  restricted  the  distance  that  might  be 
travelled  on  that  day.  The  king  is  warned  not  to  speak 
as  a  ruler,  which  seems  to  mean  that  he  must  neither 
legislate  nor  judge  ;  and  according  to  the  rabbis  cases  at 
law  might  not  be  tried  on  the  Sabbath,  save  when  the 
offence  was  against  religion.  In  Assyria  the  seer  must 
not  apply  his  hand  to  the  sick ;  and  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  found  fault  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth  because  he 
healed  the  sick  on  the  Sabbath  day. 

These  common  points,  however,  prove  nothing.  Not- 
withstanding them,  the  Hebrew  law  may  possibly  have 
no  connection  with  the  precepts  of  this  particular  As- 
syrian ritual.  The  resemblance  is  indeed  great,  but  the 
contrasts  are  greater.  The  day  set  apart  was  not  the 
same  in  both  countries,  the  controlling  idea  of  the  day 
was  different  and  the  practice  was  different. 

1.  There  was  a  difference  as  to  the  day.     In  Assyria 

1  "In  the  morning,"  twenty-first  day. 


THE  SABBATH  27 

significance  attached  to  that  day  <>f  the  month  which  was 
seven  or  its  multiple.  Among  the  Israelites  it  was  inde- 
pendent of  the  clay  of  the  month,  being  the  recurring 
seventh  day  in  unbroken  succession  throughout  the 
year.1  Tn  other  words,  among  the  Assyrians  it  was  al- 
ways the  seventh,  fourteenth,  nineteenth,  twenty-first 
and  twenty-eighth  days  of  the  month  which  were  marked 
by  these  regulations,  while  the  Hebrew  Sabbath  might 
fall  on  any  day  of  the  month.  The  difference  as  to  the 
day  is,  it  is  true,  of  minor  importance  ;  for  it  is  conceiv- 
able that  it  arose  by  simple  substitution,  parallel  to  the 
historic  change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week  :  nevertheless  the  difference  is  char- 
acteristic and  may  be  profoundly  significant. 

2.  Again,  a  different  conception  of  the  day  prevailed 
in  the  two  countries.  Every  feature  of  the  Jewish  ob- 
servance, even  the  minutest,  both  before  the  period  of 
Babylonian  influence  and  after  the  exile,  is  based  on  the 
theory  that  the  Sabbath  is  a  day  of  rest  from  labor. 
There  was  a  deeper  thought.  The  Creator  rested  on  the 
seventh  day  and  in  his  benevolence  blessed  it  and  hal- 
lowed it  that  all  his  creatures  might  enjoy  like  rest. 
The  Sabbath  should  be  a  benediction  to  man's  physical 
being  and  woo  his  soul  to  greater  love  for  God. 

Tin's  pure  and  sublime  truth  stands  in  marked  con- 
trast to  the  Assyrian  theory.  In  Assyria  the  recurring 
seventh  day  of  the  month  was  not  a  sacred  day,  but 
merely  an  unlucky  day.  The  prohibitions  which  are 
found  in  the  ritual  are  not  laws,  but  warnings.  Man  is 
not  forbidden,  but  cautioned.  The  deeds  prohibited  are 
not  wrong,  but  dangerous.     It  is  unlucky  for  the  king  to 

JThe  law  speaks  of  a  period  of  six  days  intervening  between  the  Sabbaths. 
The  fifty  days  which  elapsed  between  the  offering  of  the  sheaf  of  the  first 
fruits  and  Pentecost  included  the  ends  of  two  months  and  yet  including  the 
next  morning  numbered  seven  weeks. 


28  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

ride  in  his  chariot  on  that  day,  unlucky  for  the  priest  to 
converse  in  private,  unlucky  for  the  seer  to  stretch  forth 
his  hand  to  touch  the  sick. 

What  gave  to  the  day  this  dismal  character  ?  Un- 
propitiousness  was  no  uncommon  characteristic  of  times 
and  seasons  in  Assyria.  The  Assyrians  regarded  days 
when  it  was  inauspicious  to  eat  fish,  dangerous  to  pay 
money,  unfortunate  to  ride  in  a  ship,  lucky  to  kill  a 
snake.  They  noted  and  catalogued  the  months  as  lucky 
or  unlucky  for  going  to  camp  or  engaging  in  battle  (III 
R.,  52).  They  watched  the  varying  aspects  of  the  moon 
because  they  thought  that  they  discerned  portents  of 
good  or  evil  in  lunar  phenomena.  The  sole  peculiarity 
of  the  calendar  under  consideration  is  that  unlucky  acts 
are  noted  for  the  recurring  seventh  and  the  nineteenth 
day  of  the  month. 

The  phasing  of  the  moon  has  properly  been  thought 
of  as  the  possible  explanation  for  the  separation  of  these 
days  from  all  others.  The  radiant  orb  of  night  has 
served  many  peoples  as  a  heavenly  clock,  measuring  off 
the  month  and  dividing  it  into  seven-day  periods.  But 
in  the  ritualistic  calendar  the  months  are  not  lunar,  but 
contain  thirty  days  ;  and  the  unlucky  days  fall  on  the 
same  date  every  month.  The  ill-fated  day  might  fairly 
coincide  with  the  phases  of  the  moon  in  Nisan  ;  but  the 
divergence  between  the  recurring  seventh  day  and  the 
moon's  quarter  would  be  quite  apparent  to  the  eye  in 
the  second  month,  and  the  variation  would  increase 
as  the  months  rolled  on.  The  nineteenth  day  of  the 
month,  too,  was  regarded  with  the  same  superstitious 
awe  as  the  recurring  seventh  day.  There  is  no  possible 
relation  between  the  nineteenth  day  of  the  month  and 
the  quartering  of  the  moon. 

A  similar  argument  opposes  the  theory  that,  a  week  of 
seven  days  having  been  adopted  because  of  the  seven 


Ill  l.   SABBATH  29 

great  luminaries  iu  the  heavens,  the  baleful  character 
of  the  seventh  day  was  due  to  its  association  with  the 
gloomy  planet  Saturn.  The  theory  falls  short  of  an  ex- 
planation ;  for  it,  too,  fails  to  account  for  the  like  regard 
being  paid  to  the  nineteenth  day  of  the  month  as  to  the 
recurring  seventh. 

The  evidence  at  present  available  indicates  that  the 
thought  uppermost  in  man's  mind  when  these  ritualistic 
tablets  took  filial  form  was  the  dread  with  which  the 
number  seven  was  invested.  The  feeling  of  awe  which 
was  associated  with  it  accounts  for  the  separation  not 
only  of  the  recurring  seventh  day  of  the  month,  but  also 
of  the  nineteenth  day,  the  seventh  seventh  from  the  be- 
ginning  of  the  preceding  month  (Boscawen).  By  this 
means  they  apologized  in  a  measure  for  the  slight  put 
upon  the  recurring  seventh  when  the  twenty-ninth  and 
thirtieth  days  were  left  out  of  the  calculation. 

3.  The  day  was  differently  observed  by  the  two  peo- 
ples. The  execution  of  the  offender  in  the  wilderness, 
the  song  for  the  Sabbath  day,  promises  and  threats  of 
prophets,  city  gates  closed  and  traffic  stopped,  towns 
preferring  capture  and  armies  submitting  to  massacre 
rather  than  engage  even  in  defensive  warfare  on  the  Sab- 
bath, tell  how  Israel  kept  the  appointed  day  of  rest.  A 
far  different  state  of  things  prevailed  on  the  Tigris.  The 
Assyrians  and  Babylonians  did  not  keep  the  unlucky 
seventh  day  as  a  national  Sabbath.  It  was  not  kept  by 
the  people  as  a  day  of  rest.  Armies  marched  forth  to  be- 
gin a  campaign  and  war  was  waged  on  that  day  (III  R.,  8, 
78;  Babylonian  Chronicle,  col.  iii.,  3).  Numerous  dated 
tablets  bear  unintentional  testimony  that  barter  and  trade 
went  on  as  usual ;  that  the  formalities  of  sale,  the  assem- 
bling of  witnesses,  and  the  signing  of  documents  pro- 
ceeded without  interruption  ;  that  the  laborious  work  of 
engraving  inscriptions  had  no  cessation.     One  copy  of 


30  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

the  annals  of  Ashurbanipal,  filling  ten  long  columns,  is, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  the  work  of  the  twenty-eighth  day  of 
Elul  (III  R,  26,  122).  There  is  no  truth  in  the  assertions 
that  the  calendar  described  "  Sabbaths  on  which  no 
work  was  allowed  to  be  done "  and  that  these  days 
"were  kept  like  the  Jewish  Sabbath"  (Smith,  Chaldean 
Account  of  Genesis,  p.  89  ;  Sayce,  Ancient  Empires,  p. 
171).  Without  doubt  the  calendar  must  be  understood 
literally  ;  the  recurring  seventh  day  was  unlucky,  not  for 
the  people  at  large,  but  for  the  king,  the  priest  and  the 
seer,  and  for  the  specified  acts  only.1 

The  differences  in  the  day  set  apart,  in  the  theory  and 
in  the  practice,  are  so  marked  as  to  raise  a  doubt  whether 
the  unlucky  day  of  this  Assyrian  ritual  had  any  connec- 
tion whatsoever  with  the  Hebrew  Sabbath.  Francis 
Brown  questions,  yet  rather  favors,  the  theory  of  some 
historical  connection  (Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  iii.,  p. 
688  seq.).  Jensen  denies  any  direct  connection  (S.  S. 
Times,  1892,  p.  35  seq.).  Final  decision  may  be  post- 
poned. Unquestionably  the  Assyrian  ritual  does  not 
represent  the  Sabbath  of  Israel ;  and  yet  it  may  have  a 
common  origin.  It  may  bo  the  degenerate  relic  of  a 
better  law.  The  prohibition  of  secular  work  may  have 
once  been  attached  to  the  day,  but  been  gradually  ignored, 
as  the  fourth  commandment  has  been  in  parts  of  Chris- 
tendom and  only  a  superstitious  expectation  of  fatality 
as  attendant  upon  certain  deeds  on  that  day  left  to  tell 
of  the  nobler  past.  Especially  may  this  be  true,  if  traces 
of  a  conception  of  the  seventh  day  as  auspicious  or  sab- 
batic can  be  found  in  the  older  Babylonian  literature. 
The  theory  that  in  early  ages  secular  work  was  generally 
proscribed  on  the  seventh  day  would  at  any  rate  account 
for  both  the  Assyrian  calendar  and  the  Sinaitic  legislation. 

1  It  is  noteworthy  as  a  commentary  on  Babylonian  custom  that  the  children 
of  Israel  brought  back  habits  of  seventh-day  labor  from  the  captivity. 


THE   SABBATH  31 

Thus  far  investigation  has  done  little  but  clear  away 
thr  fogs  in  which  the  question  has  unfortunately  been 
allowed  to  become  involved.  Several  facts,  important  be- 
cause of  their  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  origin 
and  early  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  may  now,  it  is 
hoped,  be  looked  at  with  unobscured  vision.  One  of 
these  is  that  a  seven-day  period  was  a  measure  of  time 
in  vogue  among  the  Semites  in  remote  ages.  Not  that 
there  is  absolute  proof  of  a  week  in  our  sense  of  the 
term,  universally  observed,  ever  sharply  denned,  one 
following  another  in  a  series  in  uninterrupted  succession 
throughout  the  year,  a  little  era  by  which  all  people 
reckon,  and  within  whose  bounds  they  feel  themselves 
living  ;  but  only  that  a  period  of  seven  days  as  a  division 
of  time  had  been  thrust  on  man's  notice  and  kept  before 
his  mind  by  nature  or  revelation  or  both,  and  had  found 
employment  in  daily  life.  The  Hebrews  preserved  the 
tradition  that  the  birds  which  Noah  sent  forth  from  the 
ark  were  despatched  at  intervals  of  seven  days.  The 
Aiiiiicins  and  Philistines  had  certain  marriage  obser- 
vances which  lasted  seven  days  (Gen.  xxix.  27,  28;  Judg. 
xiv.  12,  17).  According  to  the  Babylonian  story  of  the 
flood,  the  storm  raged  six  days  and  six  nights  and  ceased 
on  the  seventh  day,  making  a  week  in  all,  and  the  ark 
lay  stranded  on  the  mountain  an  equal  period  before 
man  ventured  to  disembark.  Gudea,  who  was  a  prince  of 
Lagash  long  before  the  days  of  Moses,  celebrated  a  fes- 
tival of  seven  days'  duration  on  the  completion  of  a 
temple.  In  the  tale  of  Adapa,  son  of  Ea,  a  legend  which 
antedates  the  fifteenth  century  before  Christ,  the  south 
wind  is  said  to  have?  ceased  to  blow  for  seven  days.  The 
week  with  a  conventional  beginning  which  all  men  reck- 
oned as  first  day  is,  of  course,  not  intended  in  every 
case.  The  week  which  was  fulfilled  for  Leah  began  on 
the  day  of  her  marriage.     The  six  days  and  seven  nights 


32  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

of  Izdubar's  sleep  commenced  when  the  stupor  over- 
powered him.  The  six  days  and  seven  nights  of 
Eabani's  association  with  his  new  companion  began 
when  the  acquaintance  was  formed  on  the  second  day  of 
waiting  by  the  drinking-place.  But  these  passages  show 
that  the  seven-day  period  was  a  recognized  standard, 
that  it  was  employed  for  the  varied  purposes  of  ordi- 
nary life,  that  it  had  come  to  be  denoted  by  the  peculiar 
formula  six  days  and  seven  nights  (cp.  yiatD),  that  it  was 
used  loosely  like  our  week  for  seven  successive  days 
irrespective  of  the  starting-point ;  and  it  is  noticeable 
that  the  periods  are  consecutive  in  the  account  of  the 
flood  when  Noah  sends  forth  the  birds  at  regular  inter- 
vals of  seven  days,  and  perhaps  also  in  the  Babylonian 
narrative,  where  the  seven  days  of  storm  and  fairing 
weather  are  followed  by  seven  days  during  which  the 
ship  lies  aground  on  the  mountain.  The  duration  of 
Noah's  confinement  in  the  ark,  from  the  day  of  his  en- 
trance to  that  of  his  release,  is  measurable  by  consecu- 
tive weeks,  fifty-three  in  all  ;  and  with  the  exception  of 
the  stranding  of  the  drifting  ark,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  an  accident  of  nature,  the  events  that  are  dated  by  the 
day  of  the  month  fall  on  the  first  or  seventh  day  of  these 
consecutive  weeks ;  and  it  will  be  shown  in  connec- 
tion with  the  chronology  of  the  flood  that  perhaps  even 
the  forty  days  of  rain,  and  again  of  waiting  after  the 
appearance  of  the  mountain-tops,  are  bounded  by  the 
first  and  seventh  days  of  these  consecutive  seven-day 
periods. 

What  gave  rise  to  this  reckoning  by  a  seven-day  pe- 
riod ?  Not  improbably  the  phasing  moon  had  some  in- 
fluence. Men  relied  upon  that  occurrence  in  remotest 
antiquity  for  the  measurement  of  time  ;  for  the  moon 
marked  off  months  and  divided  them  approximately  into 
seven-day  periods   with  unfailing  regularity   (Lotz,    dc 


THE   SABBATH  33 

historia  Sabbati,  p.  37  ;  Robertson  Smith,  Encyc.  Brit., 
Art.  Sabbath).  The  phenomenon  is  referred  to  in  the 
passage  already  quoted  from  the  Creation  tablets. 

"In  order  to  make  known  the  days 
Every  month  without  fail  mark  off  [time  ('?)]  with  the  crown  ; 
At  the  beginning  of  the  month,  on  rising  at  night, 
Horns  dost  thou  show  in  order  to  make  known  the  heaven, 
I  in  the  seventh  day  the  crown " 

With  these  lines  the  words  <»f  Genesis  may  not  inaptly 
be  compared  as  an  expression  of  man's  habit  of  depend- 
ing on  the  heavenly  bodies  in  general  to  measure  time 
for  him,  and  of  his  apprehension  that  these  bodies  were 
intended  by  the  Creator  to  serve  this  purpose.  "Let 
there  be  lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  .  .  .  and 
let  them  be  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
years." 

But  the  moon's  changes  do  not  account  for  the  auspi- 
cious and  sacred  character  of  the  seventh  day,  nor  does 
the  additional  fact  that  among  the  stars  seven  luminaries 
were  conspicuous  for  their  size  and  their  movement 
among  the  heavenly  host.  Thirty  never  became  a  sacred 
number,  although  the  moon  was  constantly  symbolized 
by  that  number  in  documents,  accomplished  its  lunations 
in  that  number  of  days,  and,  as  heaven's  indicator,  meas- 
ured time  in  periods  of  thirty  days  ;  nor  did  three  hun- 
dred and  sixty-five  become  a  heavenly  number,  although 
the  sun-god  completed  his  course  in  so  many  days,  and 
accurately  marked  off  the  natural  year.  It  seems  to 
have  been  other  associations  connected  with  the  number 
seven  that  rendered  the  seventh  day  and  the  seventh 
seventh  day  separate  from  all  others  in  the  Assyrian 
ritual,  and  that  made  the  seventh  day  and  the  seventh 
month,  perhaps,  and  the  seventh  year  notable  periods  in 
Israel. 

3 


34  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

What  other  associations  were  there?  Perhaps  indi- 
cations may  be  found  in  the  ancient  writings.  Let  us 
see. 

According  to  the  Babylonian  narrative  the  flood,  the 
fearful  work  of  the  gods,  ceased  on  the  seventh  day. 
This  fact  is  noteworthy  because  of  its  possible  signifi- 
cance. Deity  is  at  rest  and  man  is  relieved  on  the  sev- 
enth day  (Jensen).1  But  more  than  this.  The  Hebrew 
narrative,  the  strangely  variant  account  given  by  Jose- 
phus,  and  the  cuneiform  story  preserve,  each  in  its  own 
way,  the  recollection  that  the  release  from  the  ark  and 
the  sacrifice  which  the  saved  offered  took  place  on  a 
seventh  day ;  the  exit,  according  to  the  Hebrew  narra- 
tive, being  authorized  by  God  on  a  seventh  day  long 
after  the  earth  was  dry.  These  facts  also  may  be  signifi- 
cant. Gracious  relief  is  afforded  to  man  by  heaven,  for 
which  a  thank-offering  is  made ;  afforded  on  the  sev- 
enth day  and,  perhaps,  as  may  appear  later,  expected  to 
be  afforded  on  that  day.  But  yet  more.  In  the  Hebrew 
account  of  creation,  in  the  periodic  cessation  of  the 
manna,  and  in  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  the  outstanding 
features  are  likewise  divine  rest  and  human  relief  on  the 
recurring  seventh  day.  Similar  thoughts  reappear  in 
the  feast  on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month,  with  its 
solemn  rest  and  the  special  offering  for  a  sweet  savor 
unto  the  Lord  (Lev.  xxiii.  24,  25  ;  Num.  xxix.  1) ;  in  the 
consecration  of  the  seventh  year  that  the  land  might  rest 
unto  the  Lord  and  recover  its  strength  (Ex.  xxiii.  11 ;  Lev. 
xxv.  4)  ;  in  the  release  of  the  seventh  year  which  allowed 
the  Hebrew  bondman  after  six  years  of  service  to  go  forth 
free  (Ex.  xxi.  2  ;  Deut.  xv.  12  seq.) ;  and  in  the  jubilee, 
when,  "seven  times  seven  years"  having  been  completed, 
liberty  was  proclaimed  throughout  the  land  (Lev.  xxv.  8 

1  Such  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  narrative.     See  chapter  on 
the  flood. 


THE   SABBATH  35 

seq.).  Each  recurring  seventh  period  of  time  is  a  season 
of  rest,  liberty,  and  joy.  What  do  these  things  mean  ? 
An  origin  is  needed  for  the  belief  that  the  seventh  por- 
tion of  time  was  a  season  of  rest  and  good-will  to  man ; 
a  heavenly  example  calling  for  imitation  on  earth. 


Ill 

THE  CREATION   OF  MAN 

Practically  the  universal  belief  of  antiquity  in  regard 
to  man's  origin  was  that  lie  was  made  of  earth.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise,  for  the  truth  was  evident  to  him  that 
had  eyes  to  see.  Man's  body  moulders  to  dust  after  death. 
Plainly  it  is  made  of  earth.  The  tales  which  would  tell 
the  story  of  man's  creation  differ,  indeed,  but  the  differ- 
ence between  the  accounts  which  assume  the  intervention 
of  a  creator  lies  in  the  method  of  divine  procedure. 

In  a  review  of  the  Semitic  tradition  of  this  event  three 
narratives  have  special  importance. 

The  Babylonian  priest  Berosus  relates,  in  a  passage  al- 
ready quoted,  that  Bel  removed  his  head  and  other  gods 
(or  god)  mixed  the  outflowing  blood  with  earth  and  formed 
men ;  wherefore  they  are  intelligent  and  partake  of  di- 
vine thought.  "Who  the  unnamed  assistant  of  Bel  was  is 
not  known.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  the  deity  was  a 
goddess,  namely  Aruru,  of  whom  it  is  related  that,  at  a 
comparatively  late  date  in  human  history,  when  a  being 
was  needed  to  counteract  the  influence  of  Izdubar,  she 
washed  her  hands,  plucked  off  clay,  cast  it  to  the  ground, 
and  made  Eabani.  This  conjecture  has  received  decided 
confirmation  from  a  passage  in  the  so-called  "  Non-Semit- 
ic Version  of  the  Creation  Story "  where  the  two  lines 

occur  : 

''Bel  made  mankind, 
Aruru  bad  made  the  seed  of  mankind  with  him."  ' 

1  The  attempt  to  identify  the  god  Ea  with  the  nameless  assistant  of  Bel  is  a 
failure  so  far  as  it  is  based  on  the  claim  that  Ea  "  bears  among  other  signifi- 


THE   CREATION    OF    .MAN  37 

The  second  of  the  three  narratives  to  which  attention 
is  called  comes  from  the  Nile  country.  It  is  said  to  have 
been  "of  comparatively  recent  growth"  (Wilkinson, 
Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  i.,  1 ;  cp.  Brugsch,  Steininschrift 

uml  Bibelwort,  !S.  14).  It  appears  in  its  most  elabo- 
rate form  in  a  prayer  and  not  in  a  formal  account  of  the 
creation  of  man.  A  king  is  represented  as  approaching 
Chnum,  the  creator,  and  addressing  the  god  thus:  "I 
draw  nigh  to  thee,  holy  architect,  creator  of  the  gods, 
builder  of  the  egg,  peerless  one.  At  thy  will  the  potter's 
wheel  was  brought  unto  thee,  and  on  it  thou  didst  model 
gods  and  men.  Thou  art  the  great,  exalted  god  who  in 
the  beginning  first  formed  this  world  (Brugsch,  ibid.,  S. 
1">).  The  words  of  another  inscription  are  more  like  the 
Hebrew  transmission:  "The  great  living  god,  who 
formed  man  and  breathed  the  breath  of  life  into  his 
nose  "  (ibid.,  10). 

The  third  account  has  been  transmitted  by  the  He- 
brews. "  The  Lord  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 
life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul." 

cant  names  that  of  a  potter"  (Jensen,  Kosmologic,  S.  293).  A  better  statement 
of  the  case  is  that  the  ideograms  for  god-potter  are  explained  as  a  title  of  the 
god  Ea.  The  name  does  not  indicate  that  Ea  did  the  work  of  a  potter,  but 
that  he  was  the  patron  of  the  craft.  It  does  not  refer  to  Ea  as  being  a  potter, 
but  as  being  god  of  the  potter  (II  It.,  58,  No.  ",,  57b,  e.).  The  title  falls  to  Ea 
because  he  is  the  god  of  wisdom,  who  knows  everything  and  presides  over 
every  department  of  skill.  On  the  tablet  alluded  to,  after  a  series  of  titles  re- 
ferring to  the  dominion  of  Ea  as  '"god  of  heaven  and  earth,"  "  god  of  the 
creation,"  "  god  of  the  universe,"  there  follows  "god  of  wisdom."  Because 
god  of  wisdom  he  is,  as  is  particularized  in  the  succeeding  lines, 

god-potter  =  god  Ea  [as  god]  of  the  potter. 

god-smith  =     "     "     "     "     "     "      smith. 

god-singer  =     "     "     "     "     "     "      6inger. 
god-lord-ships  =     "     "    "     "     "     "      sailor. 
These  titles  do  not  mean  that  Ea  wrought  as  a  potter  and  as  a  blacksmith 
and  as  a  sailor.     They  simply  mean  that  Ea  was  the  divine  source  of  all  skill 
and  patron  of  the  arts.     The  title  god-potter  therefore  cannot  be  adduced  as 
proof  that  the  god  who  assisted  Marduk  in  the  creation  of  man  was  Ea. 


38  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

Are  these  gross  tales  from  Babylonia  and  Egypt  to 
serve  as  commentaries  on  the  Hebrew  narrative,  show- 
ing that  the  conception  of  the  Hebrew  writer  was  gross 
also ;  or  does  the  Hebrew  account  represent  a  pure  con- 
ception which  underlies  the  other  two  narratives?  Have 
Babylonian  and  Egyptian  originals  been  stripped  of 
everything'  repugnant  to  worshippers  of  the  spiritual 
God  to  yield  the  Hebrew  account,  or  is  it  the  pure  tra- 
dition which  during  transmission  by  other  people  became 
fantastically  elaborated  and  corrupted  ? 

To  these  queries  it  may  be  answered  : 

1.  If  the  Babylonian,  Hebrew,  and  Egyptian  narratives 
are  rooted  in  one  and  the  same  tradition,  but  in  process 
of  time  grew  apart,  the  differences  are  apt  to  be  mainly 
growth  and  the  common  elements  to  be  the  essential  and 
original  or  at  least  early  features.  Judged  thus,  the 
potter's  wheel  is  an  amplification  of  the  original  tradi- 
tion ;  for  it  is  a  feature  peculiar  to  the  Egyptian  version 
and  is  not  essential  to  the  process  of  shaping  a  human 
figure  out  of  clay.  For  like  reasons  the  diverse  state- 
ments, on  the  one  hand  that  the  Lord  God  breathed  into 
man's  nostrils,  and  on  the  other  that  the  creating  god 
mingled  his  blood  with  earth  in  order  to  form  man,  have 
a  common  root  in  the  tradition  that  God  gave  life  to 
man.  The  elements  common  to  the  three  narratives  are 
that  God  formed  man  from  the  dust  of  the  earth  and 
communicated  life  unto  him.  This  is  the  germinal  tra- 
dition, and  it  has  been  transmitted  by  the  Hebrew  in  al- 
most bald  simplicity. 

2.  But  let  us  shift  the  point  of  view.  Apart  from  com- 
parison with  each  other,  considered  in  themselves  indi- 
vidually, the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  tales  are  elabora- 
tions. They  are  complex.  The  simple  always  precedes 
the  complex,  the  picture  must  have  a  motive.  The  sub- 
ject of  these  narratives  is  man's  origin.     Experience  or 


THE   CREATION    OF    MAN  39 

revelation  or  both  had  taught  that  man's  body  is  formed 
of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  The  truth  was  also  firmly 
grasped  that  God  is  the  creator  of  all  things.  The  re- 
sultdng  doctrine  was  that  God  created  man,  determining 
his  shape  and  figure,  forming  him  of  the  dust  and  giving 
to  him  life  and  breath.  This  is  the  basis  of  the  story, 
the  truth  upon  which  man  built.  Its  formal  enunciation 
has  no  fascination,  does  not  charm  the  imaginative  mind, 
does  not  comport  with  Oriental  mode  of  expression.  Not 
content  with  a  bald  statement  of  the  truth,  fervent  minds 
sought  to  lend  life  and  color  to  the  picture  by  portray- 
ing details  and  introducing  explanations  which  a  vivid 
imagination  furnished.  Man's  body  was  made  of  earth. 
And  the  Egyptian  Avorshipper,  familiar  with  the  sight 
of  his  fellow-countrymen  shaping  vessels  of  Nile  clay  on 
the  indispensable  wheel,  conceives  of  the  creator  standing 
before  the  revolving  disk  and  moulding  the  forms  of  gods 
and  men  out  of  earth.1  The  speculative  Babylonian, 
knowing  that  the  life  is  in  the  blood,  wove  into  the  ac- 
cepted doctrine  the  theory  that  the  creating  god  removed 
his  head  and  had  the  outflowing  blood  mixed  with  earth 
in  order  that  the  man  to  be  might  live. 2     The  Hebrew 

1  Bragsch's  contention  in  his  work  on  "  Religion  nn<l  Mj'thologie  der  alten 
Aegypter"  is  that  the  Egyptian  mythology  sprang  from  simple  conceptions 
of  nature,  ami  that  th«'  doctrines  were  known  and  taught  in  practically  their 
naked  simplicity  as  well  as  in  mythological  garb  during  every  period  of  Egyp- 
tian history.  As  bearing  on  the  actual  method  which  the  creator  was  sup- 
posed to  have  pursued  when  he  formed  gods  and  men,  it  may  be  in  place  to 
quote  two  sentences  from  Egyptian  writings  :  "He  uttered  his  voice  and  the 
deities  were,"  "  The  deities  came  into  existence  in  accordance  with  the  com- 
mand of  his  mouth"  (cited   by  Biugsch,  lb.,  S.  '.>*). 

"  That  the  story  as  told  by  Berosus  is  a  modification  of  the  original  tradi- 
tion appears  also,  we  think,  from  the  existence  of  a  variant  version  in  Baby- 
lonia which  might  mediate  between  the  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  accounts,  did 
it  not  ascribe  the  work  of  creation  to  the  sun-god.  The  tradition  referred  to 
is  reflected  in  these  words  from  a  tablet :  Marduk  "  made  mankind,  the  mer- 
ciful one  with  whom  is  power  to  make  alive.  May  his  word  stand  firm  and 
not  be  forgotten  in  the  mouth  of  the  black  -heads  [i.e.,  men]  whom  his  hands 
made  "  (ALi  42,  AL2  80  and  AL3  95,  15-1S.). 


40  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

historian,  con  trolled  by  his  lofty  conception  of  God,  re- 
fused to  give  flight  to  the  imagination  or  to  follow  the 
grossness  of  heathen  speculation.  His  account  is  nearer 
to  the  bald  statement  of  the  truth  than  either  of  its  for- 
eign counterparts.  It  is  evidently  the  original  stream  of 
the  tradition,  colored — not  discolored — by  the  nature  of 
the  channel  through  which  it  courses,  but  possessing 
still  the  character  which  it  had  at  the  fountain-head. 

3.  Let  us  shift  the  point  of  view  again.  Analogy  is 
full  of  suggestiveness  in  this  matter.  Its  testimony  is 
not  infallible,  but  it  has  value  for  purposes  of  corrobo- 
ration and  indication.  It  confirms  the  priority  of  the 
Hebrew  form  of  the  tradition ;  and  going  further,  it 
emphasizes  the  Hebrew  narrative  as  being,  not  a  return 
to  or  towards  the  original,  perhaps,  but  a  survival  of  it. 
The  theory  of  survival  or  of  coexistence  side  by  side 
with  corrupted  forms  is  demonstrable  in  the  case  of  the 
Hebrew  account  of  creation.  It  is  certain,  also,  that 
the  Hebrew  narrative  of  the  flood  represents  a  purer 
transmission  of  the  history  of  that  event  than  do  the  ex- 
tant Babylonian  accounts.  Analogy,  accordingly,  while 
it  does  not  prove,  yet  favors  the  theory  that  the  Hebrew 
narrative  of  man's  creation  is  the  stream  of  the  original 
tradition,  not  clarified  from  impurities  which  had  entered 
and  rendered  it  unwholesome,  but  still  flowing  with 
waters  which,  though  reflecting  the  color  of  their  channel 
and  banks,  never  lost  their  pristine  sweetness  and  purity. 

This  cursory  review  of  the  three  narratives  has  done 
more  than  bring  to  light  their  relation  to  the  primitive 
tradition.  It  has  laid  bare  the  foundation  of  that  tradi- 
tion, and  has  shown  that  this  foundation  is  not  a  heathen 
myth,  but  the  universally  accepted  truth  ;  the  simple 
truth,  afterwards  distorted,  that  God  made  man's  body 
of  earth  and  bestowed  the  gift  of  life. 

The  next  question  that  arises  is  whether  the  Hebrew 


THE   CREATION    OF    MA.N  [\ 

narrator  meant  to  describe  the  method  of  divine  pro- 
cedure and  to  teach  that  God  shaped  a  human  form  out 
of  the  dust  of  the  earth  and  with  his  mouth  breathed 
into  the  nostrils  of  this  clay  figure  the  breath  of  life  ;  or 
whether,  intending  to  teach,  without  bringing  in  or  con- 
sidering any  extraneous  ideas,  simply  that  God,  in  creat- 
ing man,  determined  his  form,  made  him  of  earthy  ma- 
terial, and  gave  him  breath  and  life,  used  figurative 
language  which  was  current  coin  in  the  speech  of  plain 
people.  For  the  expressions  which  are  employed  to  de- 
scribe the  creation  of  man,  even  where  they  mirror 
pictures,  were  current  in  the  ordinary  speech  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  word  yatsar,  like  its  English  equivalents  "to 
form,  to  fashion,"  has  its  special  application  to  the  arts. 
It  can  describe  the  potter  shaping  the  clay,  and  the 
sculptor  chiselling  the  stone,  and  the  smith  forging  the 
iron  (Is.  xlv.  9  ;  xliv.  9,  V2).  It  would  be  the  appro- 
priate word  to  describe  the  work  of  moulding  a  human 
figure  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.  But  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  word  has  its  general  application.  With- 
out calling  up  to  the  mind  the  image;  of  potter,  sculptor, 
or  smith,  it  is  used  to  describe  the  Creator's  work  who 
forms  light  and  creates  darkness,  who  formed  summer 
and  winter,  who  formeth  man  in  secret  before  birth,  who 
fashioneth  our  imperfect  substance'  before  it  is  brought 
forth,  who  formeth  the  spirit  of  man  within  him  (Is.  xlv. 
7  ;  Ps.  Ixxiv.  17  ;  Jer.  i.  5  ;  Ps.  exxxix.  10  ;  Zech.  xii.  1). 
It  is  used  also  of  God  in  calling  a  nation  into  being,  as 
when  he  created  Jacob  and  formed  Israel  (Is.  xliii.  1,  21). 
It  would  be  a  fitting  word  to  employ  for  the  purpose  of 
describing  the  spiritual  God  willing  and  securing  that 
man's  body  be  constituted  of  the  dust  of  the  ground. 
This  last  phrase,  too,  "  dust  of  the  ground,"  must  not  be 
arbitrarily  and  rcstrictedly  understood  ;  it  means  com- 
prehensively the  material  of  the  universe.     God  is  fur- 


42  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

ther  said  to  have  breathed  into  man's  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life.  The  language  could  aptly  be  used  to  express  the 
placing  of  the  lips  to  the  nostrils  of  clay  and  breathing 
in  vital  breath  until  respiration  was  started  and  life  be- 
gan. But  here  again  the  use  of  language  must  be  re- 
membered. A  mode  of  statement  and  a  form  of  expres- 
sion occur  which,  though  capable  of  a  realistic  literal 
interpretation,  were  current  in  the  speech  of  ordinary 
life  in  a  sense  quite  devoid  of  realism.  It  need  scarcely 
be  said  that  the  words  "  God  breathed  into  man's  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life  "  may  mean  in  Hebrew  parlance  merely 
that  God  caused  the  vital  breath  to  be  in  man's  nostrils. 
The  breathing  into  the  nostrils,  moreover,  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  the  previous  existence  of  an  image  of  clay 
with  face  and  nose.  Breath  is  felt  in  the  nostrils  and  is 
a  sign  of  life.  Breath  in  the  nostrils  is  a  current  figure 
for  life.  "  All  in  whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life  " 
perished  in  the  flood.  Man  is  ephemeral,  his  "  breath  is 
in  his  nostrils."  The  statement  that  God  breathed  into 
man's  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  may  be  the  language  of 
a  historian  and  mean  simply  that  God  imparted  life  to 
man.  The  thought  is  summed  up  in  the  words  :  "  And 
man  became  a  living  soul."  Very  different,  indeed,  as 
the  sequel  shows,  from  the  great  whales  in  the  sea  and 
from  the  cattle  and  creeping  things  and  beasts  of  the 
earth,  yet,  like  them,  man  was  a  living  soul,  i.e.,  animate 
(Gen.  i.  20,  24 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  45). 

What,  then,  is  the  true  interpretation  ?  What  did  the 
Hebrew  narrator  himself  mean  ?  The  question,  be  it 
observed,  is  not  in  what  literary  form  the  tradition 
reached  the  Hebrew  narrator.  He  may  have  quoted  the 
exact  words  of  the  Semitic  transmission.  A  few  Egyp- 
tians may  have  understood  that  God  placed  his  lips  to 
the  nostrils  of  clay.  The  uninstructed  Israelite  and  the 
careless  reader  may  have  interpreted  the  phraseology  in 


THE   CREATION   OF   MAN  43 

gross  literalness.  But  that  is  not  the  question.  The 
question  is  how  the  Hebrew  narrator,  whether  he  quoted 
or  rewrote1,  understood  ;  and  whether  he  expected  and 
intended  his  language  to  be  pushed  in  the  utmost  liter- 
alness that  it  will  bear,  or  to  be  taken  in  the  current 
meaning  of  the  terms.  Surely  he  adopted  the  tradition 
in  consonance  with  his  conception  of  God.  Literature 
which  is  incorporated  with  one's  creed  is  adjusted  to 
one's  dominant  belief.  Even  if  amid  the  vicissitudes 
of  transmission  the  truth  as  to  man's  origin  accumulated 
about  itself  the  rubbish  of  pagan  speculation  and  re- 
flected it  in  phraseology  and  passed  thus  burdened  to 
Israel — a  theory  which,  however,  as  already  shown,  is 
not  favored  by  analogy — yet  even  so,  as  soon  as  the 
tradition  was  appropriated  by  the  Hebrew  narrator  and 
transmitted  to  his  countrymen,  it  lost  for  him  and  for 
them  every  thought  and  suggestion  incompatible  with 
his  and  their  conception  of  God.  It  became  naturalized 
in  Israel.  Henceforth  it  partook  of  the  character  of 
Israel's  faith. 

The  narrator's  conception  of  Jehovah  is  exalted  and 
pure.  Always,  except  occasionally  during  a  theophany — ■ 
e.g.t  in  the  garden  (ii.  21,  22  (?),  and  iii.  8) — Jehovah  op- 
erates in  a  distinctive!}'  divine  manner.  He  accom- 
plishes his  purposes  by  act  of  will  and  control  of  nature. 
His  outstretched  hand,  his  look  are  but  symbolical  ac- 
tions or  figures  of  speech,  not  the  efficient  cause.  They 
are  anthropomorphisms  which  were?  to  be  expected,  and 
they  in  nowise  obscure  the  lofty  conception  of  Jehovah. 
Nothing  is  too  hard  for  him  (Gen.  xviii.  1-1),  for  he  is  the 
God  and  maker  of  heaven  and  earth  (Gen.  xxiv.  3 ;  ii.  4). 
When  he  produces  an  effect  in  the  visible  world,  he  does 
it  not  as  a  man  would.  Ho  wills,  and  the  hidden  proc- 
esses of  nature  obey.  He  "planted  a  garden  in  Eden," 
not  as  a  man  would  set  out  an  orchard,  but  by  "  making 


44  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

trees  to  grow  out  of  the  ground "  (Gen.  ii.  8,  9).  He 
remained  in  heaven,  and  yet  discomfited  the  Egyptian 
host  and  took  off  their  chariot-wheels  (Ex.  xiv.  24,  25). 
He  uttered  no  word  of  command  even,  yet  at  his  will  in 
an  instant  the  rod  of  Moses  was  a  serpent  and  the  hand 
was  like  snow  with  leprosy  (Ex.  iv.  2-7).  He  appeared 
to  Moses  and  knew  him  face  to  face,  yet  this  servant  of 
God  was  profoundly  aware  that  never,  even  in  the  most 
favored  moment,  had  he  beheld  the  essential  glory  of 
Jehovah,  a  glory  which  no  man  can  look  upon  and  live 
(Ex.  xxxiii.  18-23).  Such  was  the  conception  of  Jehovah 
which  the  Hebrew  historian  who  penned  the  descrijDtion 
of  man's  creation  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth  entertained 
in  his  mind  and  displayed  in  his  writings.  Surely  he 
at  least  did  not  intend  to  teach  that  Jehovah  God,  when 
he  formed  man,  stood  as  a  potter  at  the  wheel  and  slow- 
ly shaped  the  clay.  According  to  the  character  ascribed, 
Jehovah  God  produced  the  result  by  act  of  will  or  by 
control  of  the  forces  of  nature. 

The  same  conception  of  the  divine  method  of  work 
was  entertained,  and  the  same  high  standard  of  inter- 
pretation established  for  the  Church  by  him  who  placed 
the  ancient  traditions  of  the  creation  of  the  universe  in 
general  and  the  creation  of  man  in  particular  side  by  side. 
He  relates,  indeed,  that  God  made  the  luminaries,  and 
put  them  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  (Gen.  i.  1G,  17 )  ; 
but  he  does  not  mean  that  God  fabricated  them  in  his 
workshop  and  transported  them  to  their  places  in  the 
sky.  He  expressly  states  that  God  said  :  "  Let  there  be 
lights  in  the  firmament  of  heaven,  and  it  was  so  "  (vs. 
14,  15 ;  cp.  also  v.  6  with  7,  11  with  12,  20  with  21). 
He  believed  and  taught  that  God's  method  of  work  dif- 
fers from  man's  method,  not  in  magnitude  and  magnifi- 
cence merely,  but  radically  in  mode  of  operation.  Ho 
spake  and  it  was  done,  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast, 


THE  CREATION   OF    MAN  45 

he  willed  and  instantly  or  gradually,  mediately  or  imme- 
diately, it  finds  accomplishment.  At  creation  there  was 
no  man  to  whom  Jehovah  God  should  manifest  himself, 
no  occasion  to  veil  his  glory  by  standing  at  the  potter's 
wheel,  no  reason  for  working  in  other  than  his  own  sub- 
lime, divine  manner,  no  appropriateness  in  forming 
man's  body  otherwise  than  by  act  of  will  and  the  exer- 
cise of  unseen  power.  He  who  placed  the  first  and 
second  chapters  of  Genesis  side  by  side,  penning,  it  may 
be,  the  very  words  of  the  old  tradition  concerning  man's 
creation,  when  judged  by  his  own  conception  of  God, 
shared  the  view,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted,  and  fixed  for 
the  church  the  interpretation  alone  valid  and  authorita- 
tive that  God  formed  man's  body  of  earth  and  inspired  it 
with  life  by  act  of  will  and  by  the  exercise  of  unseen 
power. 

The  attitude  of  Scripture  generally  to  the  record  of 
man's  creation  deserves  passing  notice.  In  writings  which 
presuppose  acquaintance  with  the  second  chapter  of 
Genesis,  it  is  only  outside  of  the  Scriptures  that  the  idea 
is  countenanced  or  taught  that  the  Creator  moulded  earth 
into  a  human  figure  when  he  would  form  man.  Job  and 
Elihu  have  indeed  been  cited  to  the  contrary.  Job  says  : 
"Thine  hands  have  formed  me  and  fashioned  me,  thou 
hast  fashioned  me  as  clay  ;  and  wilt  thou  bring  me  into 
dust  again  ?"  Elihu  says  :  "The  inspiration  of  the  Al- 
mighty givefh  men  understanding."  "The  spirit  of  God 
hath  made  me  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given 
me  life.  I  also  have  been  nipped1  from  the  clay"  (x.  8- 
12  ;  xxxii.  8  ;  xxxiii.  4  6).  Despite  the  strong  language, 
however,  language  strictly  parallel  to  that  used  in  the 
second  chapter  of  Genesis  to  describe  the  creation  of 
man,  neither  of  these  men  thought  that  God  had  moulded 
a  piece  of  clay  into  human  shape  to  form  him.  Each 
1  The  same  verb  is  used  in  the  description  of  the  formation  of  ESabani. 


46  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

knew  that  he  had  been  conceived  in  the  womb  and  born 
(iii.  3,  11  ;  x.  18  ;  xxxi.  15).  It  may  seem  strange,  bnt  it 
is  a  fact,  that  the  language  which  the  writer  of  the  second 
chapter  of  Genesis  uses  to  describe  man's  creation  is 
found  in  the  mouth  of  these  men  when  speaking  of  ordi- 
nary human  conception  and  birth.  And  it  may  well  be 
asked  whether  they  did  not  believe  that  God  in  forming 
the  first  man  wrought  in  a  manner  essentially  like  that 
which  he  adopts  in  bringing  every  man  into  the  world.1 

This  chapter  may  find  fitting  conclusion  in  the 
thoughts  regarding  man  which  were  shared  by  the  Sem- 
ites east  and  west  and  reflected  in  their  traditions. 

1.  The  apprehension  of  God  as  man's  creator.  This  is 
somewhat  remarkable ;  for  in  reference  to  the  universe  at 
large  the  Babylonian  account  of  creation  does  not  postu- 
late the  priority  of  God  to  matter.  The  gods  of  the  pan- 
theon, which  are  merely  the  heavenly  bodies  and  other 
natural  objects  considered  animistically,  are  said  to  come 
into  existence.  No  act  of  creation  is  implied.  But  when 
the  origin  of  man  is  concerned  there  is  ever,  as  among 
the  Hebrews,  the  clear  apprehension  that  he  is  the  creat- 
ure and  dependent  of  God. 

2.  The  conception  that  man  was  created  in  the  spirit- 
ual image  of  God.  The  Egyptian  worshipper — who  per- 
haps is  not  unjustly  mentioned  in  the  same  breath  with 
Semites  when  certain  traditions  are  under  discussion — 
the  Egyptian  worshipper  thinks  of  men  as  formed  by  the 
same  divine  artificer  in  the  same  manner  and  on  the  same 
wheel  with  the  created  gods.    The  Babylonian  scribe  ex- 

1  Similarly,  in  a  papyrus,  language  much  like  that  used  to  describe  the  act  of 
the  Egyptian  god  in  creating  man  is  employed  of  the  ordinary  divine  agency  ex- 
perienced by  every  man,  where  none  but  a  figurative  interpretation  seems  to  be 
possible.  The  papyrus  dates  from  the  nineteenth  dynasty,  that  of  the  Phar- 
aohs of  the  oppression  and  exodus.  Phtah  is  hailed  as  the  fashioner  of  men, 
the  former  of  the  gods,  the  lord  of  life  who  opens  the  throat  and  affords  breath 
to  the  noses  of  all  (Brugsch,  Religion  u.  Mythologie,  S.  512  f.). 


THE   CREATION    OF   MAN  47 

pressed  the  same  thought  when  he  records  that  the 
blood  of  the  creating  god  entered  into  the  composition  of 
men  so  that  they  are  intelligent  and  partake  of  divine 
thought.  The  doctrine  is  enunciated  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  in  the  words,  "  God  created  man  in  his  own 
image,  in  the  likeness  of  God  created  he  them." 

3.  The  sense  of  the  gulf  In 'tween  man  and  beast.  The 
feeling  manifests  itself  in  the  Babylonian  narrative  in 
the  passage;  already  cited.  It  is  embodied  in  the  belief 
entertained  by  the  Israelites  that  at  death  the  spirit  of 
the  beast  goeth  downward,  but  the  spirit  of  man  goeth 
upward.  It  is  beautifully  exhibited  in  the  picture  of 
Adam  scanning  the  animals  as  they  come  before  him, 
distinguishing  them  by  names  from  each  other  and  from 
himself  until,  having  separated  and  bounded  off  bird 
and  beast,  he  discovers  that  he  is  alone.  He  finds  none 
of  his  own  kind.  He  has  no  spiritual  likeness  and  no 
companionship  with  the  beasts  about  him. 


IV 

THE   HELP   MEET  FOR   MAN 

The  Semitic  tradition  of  the  creation  of  woman  cannot 
be  studied  with  satisfaction  as  yet.  The  materials  are 
too  scanty,  for  no  parallel  to  the  Hebrew  narrative  has 
been  found.  Professor  Sayce,  it  is  true,  believes  that 
he  has  discovered  a  passage  in  one  of  the  Assyro-Baby- 
lonian  magical  texts  which  "  indicates  that  a  similar 
view  as  to  the  creation  of  the  woman  from  the  man  pre- 
vailed in  Babylonia  to  that  which  we  read  of  in  the  book 
of  Genesis.  In  W.  A.  I.,  iv.  1.,  i.  36,  37,  it  is  said  of  the 
seven  evil  spirits  :  '  The  woman  from  the  loins  of  the  man 
they  bring  forth,'  in  conformity  with  the  Semitic  belief 
which  derived  the  woman  from  the  man  "  (Hibbert  Lect- 
ures, 1887,  p.  395,  note).  But  suppose  that  to  the  words 
quoted  from  the  tablet  by  the  distinguished  professor 
there  be  added,  in  his  own  translation  elsewhere  given 
(ibid.,  451,  1.  17, 18),  the  line  that  follows  in  the  original. 
The  statement  of  the  text  then  is 

"The  woman  from  the  loins  of  the  man  they  bring  forth, 
The  child  from  the  knees  of  the  man  they  cause  to  issue." 

The  passage  as  rendered  describes  the  malicious  pranks 
of  demons  who  sometimes  in  their  malevolence  bring 
forth  a  woman  out  of  the  loins  of  a  man,  at  other  times 
take  a  child  out  of  his  knee.  There  is  no  reference  at  all 
to  the  creation  of  woman,  no  evidence  that  a  similar  view 
prevailed  in  Babylonia  to  that  which  is  taught  in  the 
book  of  Genesis. 

The  statement    that    opinion    as    to    the    creation    of 


THE    HELP    MEET    FOB    MAX  49 

woman  was  similar  in  Babylonia  and  Palestine  is,  further- 
more, based  on  a  questionable  translation.  The  meaning 
of  the  word  rendered  "loins"  is  not  certain.  The  ideo- 
gram which  corresponds  to  it  in  the  accompanying  Baby- 
lonian text  represents  several  vocables,  one  of  which 
means  "foundation"  and  another  denotes  a  part  of  the 
body  of  man  and  beast.  This  latter  word,  which  is  com- 
monly understood  to  mean  loins  or  buttocks  or  legs 
( All8  Ttl.  128) ,  may  accordingly  be  a  synonym  of  the  word 
used  ill  the  Assyrian  text  which  is  quoted  by  Professor 
Sayce.  If  so,  it  may  be  correct  to  render  the  word  of  the 
text  either,  with  Professor  Sayce,  by  loins,  or  else  by  but- 
tocks or  legs.  This  latitude  of  meaning  should  be  borne 
in  mind  when  the  inscription  is  interpreted  and  should 
prevent  the  unqualified  assertion  from  being  made  that 
the  passage  reflects  the  Hebrew  belief. 

There  is  yet  other  objection  to  seeing  in  the  passage 
a  reflection  of  the  Hebrew  belief  as  to  the  creation  of 
woman.  The  text  as  a  whole  is  not  altogether  free  from 
obscurity,  but  the  subject  of  the  story  seems  to  be  not 
the  malicious  pranks  of  demons,  but  rather  the  impossi- 
bility of  escape  from  their  pursuit.'  Quoted  more  largely, 
the  passage  is  as  follows  : 

"From  house  to  house  they  pass. 
As  for  them,  the  door  does  not  restrain  them, 

The  lock  does  not  turn  them  ; 
In  at  the  door  like  a  Bnake  fchey  go, 
In  at  the  threshold  like  the  wind  they  blow  ; 
A  woman  [who  is]  at  the  loins  (?)  of  a  man  they  lead  away, 
A  child  [who  is]  at  the  knee  of  a  man  fchey  draw  forth, 
A  noble  [who  is]  in  the  house  of  Ins  kindred  they  drive  out. 
They  are  the  scourging  voice  who  behind  a  man  go." 

The  Hebrew  narrative  of  the  provision  of  a  help  meet 
for  man  has  been  held  by  not  a  few  readers  to  be  a  par- 

1  Tlio  correctness  of  this  latter  view  is  corroborated  by  IV  R.,  27,  No.  5, 
especially  1.  7-Ki. 

4 


50  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

able  ;  as  though  its  author  intended  to  give  a  poetical  or 
symbolical  exhibition  of  the  truth,  rather  than  to  relate 
an  actual  occurrence.  There  is  no  inherent  objection  to 
this  view.  But  since  some  of  these  early  narratives  are 
clearly  the  tradition  of  events  and  the  account  of  facts, 
the  narrative  of  the  provision  of  a  companion  for  man 
must  be  so  regarded  until,  perchance,  discovery  among 
Assyro-Babylonian  tablets  reveals  in  unmistakable  man- 
ner that  the  narrative  is  intentionally  a  poetic  composi- 
tion. 

Regarded,  then,  as  intended  to  be  the  account  of  an 
event,  the  Hebrew  narrative  represents  the  man  as  sunk 
in  deep  sleep  and  yet  as  seeing  what  occurs  during  the 
stupor,  for  on  awakening  he  recognizes  the  woman  who  is 
brought  to  him  as  her  who  had  been  taken  out  of  him. 
The  narrative  thus  portrays  man  either  as  lying  in  a 
trance,  feeling  nothing  yet  conscious  of  what  was  taking 
place  ;  or  as  beholding  a  vision,  in  which  the  scene  was 
apparent  only,  not  real. 

Strong  reasons  exist  for  understanding  the  intent  of 
the  tradition  to  be  that  the  action  seen  during  sleep  was 
real  and  that  woman  was  formed  in  the  manner  de- 
scribed. The  place  assigned  to  the  account  suggests 
this  ;  the  creation  of  man  has  been  described,  it  is  ap- 
propriate for  information  to  be  next  given  as  to  woman's 
origin.  The  absence  elsewhere  of  a  particular  account 
of  how  woman  was  made  is  corroboration.  It  is  true 
that  in  the  preceding  chapter  there  is  the  record  that 
God  created  man  male  and  female.  But  that  account  is 
general.  Should  there  not  be,  as  of  the  creation  of  man, 
so  also  of  the  creation  of  woman,  a  particular  account  ? 
The  superscription  of  the  narrative  countenances  the 
indications  which  arise  from  the  place  occupied  by  the 
account :  "  It  is  not  good  that  man  should  be  alone." 
These  words  are  more  like  the  introduction  to  an  in- 


THE  HELP   MEET    FOB    MAN  51 

tended  account  of  woman's  creation,  than  merely  of  her 
presentation  to  man  amidst  a  halo  of  wholesome  truth. 
The  impression,  furthermore,  made  by  the  recital  n j >< n i 
readers,  learned  and  unlearned,  has,  with  few  exceptions, 
ever  bees  that  the  narrator  means  to  tell  how  woman 
was  made.  These  considerations  raise  the  strong  pre- 
sumption that  in  the  intent  of  the  tradition  the  action 
seen  during  sleep  was  a  reality. 

Nevertheless  the  psychological  features  are  distinctly 
those  of  a  vision.  It  was  the  divine  purpose  that  man 
should  not  be  alone ;  God  determined  to  make  a  suitable 
help  for  man.  And  this  is  what  took  place,  according 
to  the  tradition,  as  the  divine  purpose  was  about  to  be 
realized  in  human  experience.  When  man  was  created, 
he  was  allowed  to  come  in  contact  with  the  beasts  and 
hi  ids  which  God  had  made.  As  they  came  under  his 
observation,  he  noted  their  cries  and  their  traits  and 
their  habits  and  gave  to  each  a  fitting  name.  But  as  he 
observed  them  thus  attentively,  he  noted  also  that  they 
were  male  and  female,  that  they  were  of  different  kinds, 
that  all  of  one  kind  associated  by  themselves  and  found 
joyous  companionship  together  ;  but  that  nowhere  did 
he,  the  man,  meet  with  one  of  his  own  kind ;  that,  unlike 
the  other  living  creatures,  there  was  no  female  his  coun- 
terpart ;  that  for  him  there  was  no  companion  ;  that  there 
was  none  about  him  that  betrayed  knowledge  of  God  or 
sense  of  obligation  or  perception  of  relationship  to  the 
world  around  ;  that  he  was  alone  and  solitary  and  help- 
less on  earth.  Yearning  was  awakened  in  him  for  com- 
panionship, and  the  kind  of  being  suitable  for  him  was 
clearly  suggested  to  his  mind.  Then  the  Lord  God 
caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon  him,  and  he  slept ; 
and  he  saw  and  lo  !  the  Lord  God  took  one  of  his  ribs 
and  closed  up  the  flesh  instead  thereof  ;  and  the  rib, 
which  the  Lord  God  took  from  man,  made  he  a  woman. 


52  GENESI8   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

And  the  Lord  God  brought  the  woman  seen  during  the 
deep  sleep  to  the  man  when  he  awoke,  and  Adam  recog- 
nizing her  said  :  "  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone  and 
flesh  of  my  flesh." 

If  this  was  a  vision — and  the  Greek  translators  so 
understood,  for  they  rendered  the  word  for  deep  sleep  in 
this  passage  and  in  another  presently  to  be  mentioned 
by  ecstasy * — if  this  was  a  vision,  it  resembles  the  vision 
of  Abraham  at  Hebron  in  the  literary  form  in  which  it  is 
narrated  (Gen.  xv.  12-18),  and  in  its  psychology  that 
of  Peter  at  Joppa.  In  literary  form  it  is  like  the  vision 
of  Abraham,  for  the  subjective  is  related  as  objective. 
"  When  the  sun  was  going  down,  a  deep  sleep  fell  upon 
Abram  and  the  Lord  said  to  him  :  '  Know  of  a  surety 
that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not 
theirs.'  And  when  the  sun  went  down,  and  it  was 
dark,  behold  a  smoking  furnace  and  a  burning  lamp  that 
passed  between  those  pieces."  It  is  like  the  vision 
which  Peter  saw  at  Joppa  in  the  providential  preparation 
of  the  mind  for  a  phantasm  which  should  convey  truth. 
Peter  hungered  exceedingly,  fell  into  a  stupor,  saw  a 
vision  of  food  let  down  from  heaven  in  a  sheet,  heard  a 
command  to  eat,  refused  because  the  meats  were  cere- 
monially unclean,  perceived  a  voice  saying  :  "  What  God 
hath  cleansed  call  not  thou  common."  Then  while  Peter 
doubted  in  himself  what  this  vision  which  he  had  seen 
should  mean,  behold  there  were  three  men  already  come 
unto  the  house  where  he  was,  desiring  him  to  visit  and 
teach  a  gentile  (Acts  x.  9-17 ;  xi.  11,  12).  In  like  man- 
ner the  thoughts  of  Adam  were  turned  powerfully  to  the 
absolute  lack  of  companionship  for  him  among  birds  and 
beasts,  his  attention  was  directed  to  the  twofold  char- 
acter of  the  animals  which  made  their  lairs  and  built 
their  nests  together  and  wrought  in  mutual  helpfulness, 

1  Such  is  also  Bishop  Ellicott's  opinion. 


THE    HELP    M  EET    FOR    MAN  53 

and  his  mind  was  made  to  dwell  on  his  solitude.  Then 
deep  sleep  fell  upon  him,  and  he  saw  one  of  his  ribs 

taken  out  by  the  Lord  God,  the  place  closed  up  with 
flesh,  and  a  woman  formed.  He  awoke.  Immediately, 
or  alter  a  time,  the  woman  whom  he  had  seen  in  his 
sleep  is  brought  unto  him,  and,  recognizing  her,  he  ex- 
claims: "This  is  now  bone  of  my  hone  and  flesh  of 
my  flesh  ;  she  shall  be  called  woman,  because  she  was 
taken  out  of  man." 

If  this  was  a  vision,  it  was  the  method  employed  by 
God  to  reveal  to  man  those  truths  regarding  woman 
upon  which  the  moral  relations  rest.  In  a  symbolic 
manner  man  is  taught  that  woman  is  one  blood  with 
him,  that  she  equally  with  him  is  the  handiwork  of  God, 
that  she  was  created  for  the  man,  was  committed  unto 
him  by  God,  and  has  her  place  by  inherent  right  at 
man's  side  as  help  and  companion. 

It  may  be  that  like  Paul,  who  knew  not  whether  lie 
was  in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body,  the  seer  of  this 
vision  was  ignorant  whether  the  event  was  subjective  or 
objective.  He  transmitted  it  just  as  it  occurred,  with- 
out note  or  comment,  as  a  revelation  of  God  which  in- 
culcated truth  even  if  in  a  symbolic  manner. 

There  is  no  doubt  as  to  which  interpretation  is  accep- 
table to  the  spirit  of  modern  thought.  The  appeal,  how- 
ever, must  not  be  solely  to  modern  thought  when  a  tra- 
dition of  hoar  antiquity  is  to  be  interpreted.  The  main 
question  is  what  the  originators  and  early  transmitters 
of  the  tradition  intended  to  teach.  A  relevant  remark  is 
that  it  is  distinctly  ami  decidedly  in  accord  with  old 
Babylonian  tradition,  as  well  as  with  biblical  history,  for 
divine  revelation  to  be  made  by  symbolic  dreams. 

One  word  may  be  allowed  in  conclusion  regarding  a 
detail  of  the  narrative.  The  Hebrew  statement  that 
woman  was  called  'ishshdh   because  she  was  taken  from 


54  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

'tsh,  man,  Las  been  severely  criticised.  The  charge  is 
made  that  a  false  popular  etymology  is  advanced,  and 
that  the  Hebrew  writer  erroneously  regarded  'ishshdh  as 
the  grammatical  feminine  of  'tsh.  The  objection  is  raised 
unhappily,  for  the  question  of  etymology  is  not  involved 
in  the  narrative.  The  derivation  of  the  word  'ishshdh  is 
not  the  subject  under  discussion  by  the  Hebrew  writer, 
and  has  no  bearing  on  the  authenticity  of  the  record. 
The  narrative  of  the  divine  provision  of  a  help  meet  for 
man  is,  doubtless,  like  its  companions,  a  hoary  tradition 
which  was  handed  down  from  Semitic  ancestors  to-  the 
Israelites,  and  as  the  Hebrew  language  took  shape  was 
translated  into  the  new  dialect.  The  words  'tsh  and 
'ishshdh  render  into  Hebrew  the  corresponding  foreign 
words  of  the  tradition.  The  Hebrew  narrator  no  more 
asserts  that  'ishshdh  is  derived  from  the  same  root  as  ish 
than  did  the  English  scholars  offer  an  etymology  for  the 
word  woman  when  in  translating  the  Scriptures  they  ren- 
dered "  she  shall  be  called  woman  because  she  was  taken 
out  of  man." 


THE   SITE   OF   THE   GARDEN   OF  EDEN 

"A  uiveu  went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden  ;  and 
from  thence  it  was  parted  and  became  four  heads"  (Gen. 
ii.  10).  These  words  are  understood  bj  Friedrich 
Delitzsch  to  mean  that  the  stream  which  came  from 
Eden  parted  after  leaving  the  garden  and  flowed  on- 
ward through  four  channels.  Glaser,  on  the  other  hand, 
understands  the  words  to  mean  that  the  stream  divided 
into  its  own  four  heads  ;  each  head  being  itself  a  river, 
as  is  expressly  stated  (vs.  13,  14).  Glaser,  indeed, 
thinks  that  the  confluence  of  these  tributaries  was  be- 
low the  garden,  Paradise  being  situated  on  some  one  of 
them ;  but  it  is  better  perhaps  to  modify  his  theory  so 
far  as  to  understand  that  the  stream  which  came  from 
Eden  and  watered  the  garden,  "  from  that  point,"  not 
necessarily  after  flowing  through  the  garden,  but  from 
that  locality,  divided  as  one  followed  it  toward  its  source 
and  became  four  heads.  According  to  one  interpreta- 
tion the  river  of  Eden  divided  to  embrace  island  coun- 
tries in  its  onward  flow,  or  to  form  a  delta  and  seek  the 
sea  by  various  mouths  as  the  Nile  does  ;  according  to 
the  other  conception  the  great  stream,  as  it  was  followed 
upward,  was  found  to  divide  into  four  heads,  as  the  In- 
dus separates  and  has  for  its  head-waters  the  five  rivers 
of  the  Punjaub,  and  as  the  Mississippi  parts  into  the 
Red  River,  the  Arkansas,  the  Ohio,  the  Missouri  and  the 
upper  stream  of  its  own  name.  The  question  will  be  de- 
cided if  the  four  rivers  named  can  be  discovered.     It  will 


56  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

then  be  seen  whether  they  flow  out  of  a  single  stream  as 
so  many  mouths,  or  whether,  as  so  many  heads,  they 
flow  together  and  constitute  a  single  stream. 

Friedrich  Delitzsch  holds  that  the  river  which  "  went 
out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden  "  is  the  Euphrates.  En- 
tering the  alluvial  plain  at  a  higher  level  and  continu- 
ing to  flow  for  some  distance  at  greater  altitude  than  the 
Tigris,  the  Euphrates,  without  the  aid  of  its  sister  stream, 
fed  the  numerous  canals  which  irrigated  the  intervening 
country  as  far  south  as  Babylon,  and  was  the  one  stream 
which  watered  the  garden.  Below  Babylon  its  abundant 
waters  gathered  themselves  into  four  great  water-courses. 
The  first  of  these  streams  is  the  western  branch  of  the 
Euphrates,  the  celebrated  canal  Pallakopas,  which  was 
doubtless  an  old  natural  channel  converted  by  man  into 
a  canal.  The  second  is  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, which,  after  flowing  through  the  entire  central 
part  of  Babylonia,  rejoined  the  main  channel.  The  third 
is  the  Tigris,  which,  after  receiving  water  from  the  Eu- 
phrates through  the  canals  which  irrigated  the  garden, 
again  flowed  onward  an  independent  stream.  The  fourth 
is  the  Euphrates,  which,  remarkably  enough,  not  only 
has  been  assigned  the  last  place  in  the  narration,  but  has 
been  left  without  description  ;  an  omission  due  certainly 
not  to  the  fact  that  the  river  was  known  to  every  He- 
brew— for  that  was  also  the  case  with  the  Tigris — but  to 
its  being  the  chief  stream,  the  one  that  watered  the  gar- 
den, the  true  river  of  Paradise.  The  eastern  branch  of 
the  Euphrates  is  probably  meant  by  the  'Gugan  de  of 
the  inscriptions,  approximately  Gihon ;  and  since  the 
Kashshu  from  the  mountains  had  settled  in  Babylonia, 
this  branch  of  the  great  river  could  be  described  as  com- 
passing the  whole  land  of  Gush.  The  Pishon,  which 
has  been  identified  with  the  western  branch  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, compassed  the  land  of  Havilah  :  a  name  which, 


THE    SITE    OF    THE    (iAUDKX    OK    KHK.V  57 

judging  from  Gen.  x.  29,  xxv.  18;  1  Sam.  xv.  7,  denoted 
some  portion  of  the  Syrian  desert — a  part  of  which  [a 
small  district  in  the  west)  is  still  known  as  Ard  el-chalat 
— or,  more  particularly,  designated  the  territory  which 
bordered  on  Babylonia  and  extended  to  the  Persian 
Gulf.  As  gold,  bdellium,  and  shoham  stone  were  pro- 
duced in  Babylonia,  they  were  doubtless  products  of  the 
adjacent  region  across  the  Euphrates  as  well  ;  that  is, 
ex  hypotJiese,  of  Havilah,  where,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
narrator,  they  were  found.  It  is  stated  further  that  the 
stream  which  watered  the  garden  came  out  of  Eden.  Now 
the  Assyrian  word  edinu  means  a  plain  ;  and  the  alluvial 
lowlands  at  the  head  of  the  Persian  Gulf  and  the  river 
bottoms  for  a  considerable  distance  northward  are 
known  at  this  day  as  "  the  depression,"  in  contrast  with 
the  higher  desert  plateau.  It  is  therefore  quite  conceiv- 
able that  edinu,  i.e.,  Eden,  denotes  this  portion  of  Meso- 
potamia ;  the  more  so  because  the  nomadic  tribes  who 
roamed  through  this  very  region  were  called  by  the  As- 
syrians t.sd/ic  c(/iui,  "the  people  of  the  plain." 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  admirably  wrought-out  theory  of 
Eriedrich  Delitzsch.  Its  weakness  lies  first  in  the  mul- 
titude of  unsupported  conjectures  upon  which  the  iden- 
titications  rest.  Gihon  is  a  common  appellative  for  any 
rushing  stream,  and  hence  the  name,  even  if  actually 
borne  by  a  Babylonian  canal,  does  not  prove  that  par- 
ticular watercourse  to  be  the  river  which  is  referred  to 
in  the  description  of  Eden.  Pishon  is  assumed  to  have 
been  the  ancient  name  of  the  Pallakopas,  and  this  as- 
sumption makes  necessary  the  further  supposition  that 
the  land  of  Havilah,  which  was  surrounded  by  the  river 
Pishon,  reached  to  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  a  geo- 
graphical extension  not  supported  by  the  biblical  pas- 
sages relied  upon.  A  second  weakness  appears  in  the 
improbability  that  gold  and   shoham  stone,   which   are 


58  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

stated  by  tlie  Hebrew  writer  to  have  been  obtained  in 
Havilah,  were  products  of  tlie  alluvial  soil  of  Babylonia. 
The  evidence  that  Babylonia  was  a  gold-producing  coun- 
try is  found  in  a  single  passage.  It  is  recorded  that 
Merodach-baladan,  who  reigned  in  southern  Babylonia, 
brought  as  tribute  to  Tiglath-pileser,  among  other  costly 
gifts,  "  gold,  the  dust  of  his  land,  in  great  quantity."  The 
dust  of  southern  Babylonia  was  thus  gold  or  contained 
gold.  But  is  this  conclusion  warranted  ?  Was  the  gold 
found  in  the  alluvium  at  the  mouth  of  the  two  rivers  ? 
What  searcher  after  the  precious  metal  ever  found  it 
there?  The  hereditary  kingdom  of  Merodach-baladan 
was,  indeed,  on  the  northern  shore  of  the  gulf ;  but  is 
not  the  citation  of  this  passage  in  proof  that  Babylonia 
produced  the  gold  an  assumption  that  the  boundaries 
of  Merodach-baladan's  realm  were  confined  to  the  allu- 
vial plain  at  the  mouth  of  the  two  rivers  and  did  not, 
at  least  during  his  reign,  include  the  extensive  region  to 
the  southwest,  where  gold  is  known  to  have  been  found  ? 
As  to  the  shoham  stone,  when  it  is  mentioned  as  a  prod- 
uct of  Melucha,  proof  must  be  furnished  that  the  coun- 
try intended  is  not  the  distant  Melucha  from  which  the 
early  kings  of  Babylonia  imported  gold  and  costly  wood. 
Glaser  bases  a  theory  on  other  identifications.  He 
argues  from  the  biblical  references  that  Havilah  was  sit- 
uated in  the  interior  of  Arabia,  and  corresponded  to  the 
district  of  Yemama  with  its  extensions  to  the  northwest 
and  southwest  (Skizze  der  Geschichte  mid  Geographic 
Arabiens,  S.  323-326).  This  land  was  unquestionably  a 
gold-producing  region,  and  with  the  adjacent  territory 
was  almost  the  exclusive  source  of  gold  supply  for  the 
nations  of  antiquity.  In  this  region  precious  stones  also 
were  obtained ;  and  bdellium,  which  is  commonly  under- 
stood to  be  the  article  referred  to  by  the  Hebrew  writer 
under  the  name  of  Vddlack.     This  region  is  drained  by  a 


THE   SITE   OF  THE   GARDEN    of  EDEN"  59 

great  wady,  of  which  one  of  the  forks  was  known  to  the 
early  Arabian  geographers  as  the  Faisan,  i.e.,  in  Hebrew 

Peahon.  The  waters  of  the  wady  fail,  however,  to  reach 
the  gulf,  a  peculiarity  of  many  Arabian  rivers,  and  can 
only  be  traced  by  the  character  of  the  vegetation  (S. 
342  347).  In  central  and  eastern  Arabia,  more  defi- 
nitely in  Jebel  Shamar  and  the  adjacent  country  to  the 
south  and  east  as  far  as  the  Persian  Gulf,  Cushites  dwelt 
at  one  period  of  history  as  they  were  migrating  from 
Elam  to  Abyssinia,  thereby  causing  the  country  to  be 
known  for  a  time  as  the  land  of  Cush  (S.  338  and  355, 
and  cp.  Gen.  x.  7) ;  and  the  wady  Eunmia,  which  gathers 
the  waters  of  this  region  and  conducts  them  toward  the 
Persian  Gulf,  was  known  in  olden  time  as  Djaichan,  or, 
as  the  Hebrews  would  render  it,  Gechon,  i.e.,  Gihon  (S. 
342  and  355). 

Glaser  accordingly  interprets  the  Hebrew  writer  as 
meaning  that  below  the  garden  of  Eden  was  a  place 
where  four  rivers  united.  Two  of  these  were  the  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates;  the  others  were  the  wady  Pishon, 
which  drains  a  part  of  central  Arabia,  and  the  wady 
Rnmma,  formerly  Gihon,  which  carries  off  the  waters  of 
the  neighboring  region  on  the  north.  The  garden,  how- 
ever, cannot  be  accurately  located,  he  thinks,  even  if  the 
uniting-place  of  the  four  rivers  were  fully  known,  be- 
cause  we  do  not  know  on  which  of  the  four  rivers 
Paradise  was  situated.  We  may  assume  that  the  bib- 
lical author  conceived  of  the  garden  as  being  immedi- 
ately above  the  confluence  of  the  four  rivers.  This  place 
must  be  sought  in  the  neighborhood  of  Bosra  (S.  320- 
322). 

The  fatal  point  at  which  the  theory  of  Glaser  breaks  is 
his  identification  of  the  Gihon  with  the  wady  er-liumma. 
Tin's  identification  rests  upon  a  mistake.  The  poet, upon 
whom  Glaser  relies,  does  not  refer  to  a  river  of  Arabia, 


60  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

when  lie  mentions  the  Gihon,  but  to  the  Pyrainus  in  Cili- 
cia  (Noeldeke,  ZDMG.,  44,  4,  1890,  pp.  699-700). 

Friedrich  Delitzsch  brought  forward  proof  to  show  that 
Cush  is,  in  the  first  instance,  practically  the  same  as 
Elam.  This  fact  Fritz  Hommel  introduces  as  a  modifi- 
cation of  Glaser's  theory.  He  accepts  the  identification 
of  Havilah  with  the  mountain  district  of  Yemama  in  Ara- 
bia. In  regard  to  the  land  of  Cush,  he  claims  that  it  be- 
comes more  and  more  probable  that  Elam  as  a  whole — 
not  excepting  the  region  north  of  it,  known  to  the  classic 
Greek  writers  and  the  inscriptions  of  the  later  Assyrian 
kings  as  the  country  of  the  Cossseans — was  called  Kash  in 
earlier  times.  According  to  this,  our  Kush  (originally 
Kosh,  derived  from  Kash)  is  the  same  as  Elam  ;  and  the 
Gihon  is  the  Kherkhah,  which  rises  in  the  Cossroan  moun- 
tains, flows  past  Susa,  and  now  empties  into  the  Tigris 
below  its  union  with  the  Euphrates,  but  which  in  an- 
cient times  perhaps  found  an  outlet  directly  into  the  Per- 
sian Gulf.  South  Babylonia  is  the  neighborhood  in  which 
in  the  earliest  times  the  Babylonians  (or  the  Sumerians), 
and  after  them  the  Hebrews,  located  Paradise  "  (Sunday- 
School  Times,  December  5,  1891). 

Despite  these  scholarly  investigations,  it  can  scarcely 
be  said  that  the  location  of  the  garden  has  been  finally  de- 
termined. Research  has,  however,  been  rich  in  results  ; 
and  facts  have  been  ascertained  and  data  obtained  which 
bid  fair  to  entor  into  the  final  solution  of  the  problem. 
These  factors  are : 

1.  Mesopotamia  was  known  in  whole  or  in  part  as 
edinu. 

2.  Havilah  was  a  district  in  the  eastern  part  of  the 
Arabian  peninsula.  In  this  neighborhood  is  found  the 
mountainous  region  now  known  as  Yemama,  a  land  of 
gold  and  aromatic  gums  and  drained  by  a  wady  which, 
in  a  part  of  its  course  at  least,  went  by  the  name  of  Pe- 


THE   SITE   OF   THE   GARDEN    OF    EDEN  61 

shun.  Whether  the  waters  of  this  wady  ever  reached  the 
gulf  remains,  however,  a  question. 

3.  The  name  Cash,  or  its  equivalent,  belonged,  with 
greater  or  less  extension,  to  the  region  of  mountain  and 
tableland  which  lies  to  the  east  and  northeast  of  Baby- 
lonia.1 

4.  The  Persian  Gulf  was  called  a  river,  the  nar  mar- 
ratu.  So  to-day  the  estuary  which  embraces  Manhattan 
Island  is  called  a  river.  As  the  nar  marratu  lay  partly 
within  the  plain  and  received  a  largo  proportion  of  its 
waters  from  Mesopotamia,  it  could  be  regarded  as  com- 
ing out  of,  rather  than  as  extending  into,  the  plain  edinu. 
Into  this  "river"  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  aud  riv- 
ers of  Elam,  and  perhaps  wadies  of  Arabia,  discharged 
their  waters. 

If  the  facts  which  have  been  stated  shall  eventually  be 
found  to  bear  upon  the  site  of  the  garden  of  Eden,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  four  rivers  are  enumerated,  in  the 
Hebrew  description,  in  geographical  order.  The  most 
southern,  according  to  these  data,  was  the  Pishon,  and 

1  The  relation  between  the  names  KashshA,  koo-ctoLoi,  and  /aVo-ioi,  is  still  in 
dispute.  It  is  known  that  in  the  time  of  Sennacherib  the  Kashshu  occupied 
a  district  "between  Assyria  and  El  am  on  the  borders  of  Media;"  that  the 
KoatTaioL  wore  found  in  the  valleys  of  the  Zagros  Mountains  on  the  borders  of 
Media;  and  that  in  the  days  of  Darius  the  Great  and  his  successors  Kwairi 
was  the  country  in  which  Susa  was  situated.  Whether  these  names  represent 
unrelated  peoples,  or  different  branches  of  the  same  folk,  is  beyond  our  pres- 
ent purpose  to  inquire. 

Kashshu  =  Koa-a-aioi,         but  not        Ktoviot,     Ilah'vy,  ZA.,  vol.  iv.,  208. 
"        —       "  uncertain  as  to      "        Schrader,  KGF. ,  170  seq. 

"         =  icio-triot,      but  not        Kocnraioi,     Oppert,  ZA. ,  vol.  iii.,  421  seq. 

Lehmann,  ibid.,  vii.,  '!28  seq. 
"        =       "  and  Delitzsch,  Paradies,  S.  54,  unten ; 

Tiele,  Geschichte,  S.  70oben. 
=  KovcrSioi,       Noeldeke,  N.G.G  \V.,  is? I,  St.  8,  S.  178  seq. 

Whatever  relation  these  words  bear  to  each  other,  one  or  more  names  hovered 
about  the  high  land  on  the  east  and  northeast  of  Babylonia,  which  could  be 
reproduced  in  Hebrew  {JC13,  just  as  the  Hebrews  made  Kush  out  of  h'is/t, 
Kaisfi,  Kesh,  Kish,  the  names  by  whicb  Ethiopia  was  known  to  the  Egyptians. 


62  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

drained  the  laud  of  Havilab ;  the  next,  on  the  north, 
flowing  in  from  the  east,  came  from  the  mountain  land 
of  Cush  ;  the  next  in  order  to  the  north  was  the  Tigris ; 
and  the  most  northern  and  the  main  stream  was  the  Eu- 
phrates. 


rrJ 


TTIE    SO-CALLED    ADAM    AND    EVE    CYLINDER. 


iL^TOS 


SEAL   OF   DTJNGI,  KING    OF   DR. 
Showing  the  head-dress  of  a  god,  a  priest  and  a  worshipper.    An  act  of  worship  is  iu  progress. 


SEAL   WITH    A   SERPENT   AND  OTHER    EMBLEMS. 
A  god  is  receiving  adoration. 


VI 

THE   TEMPTATION   OF  MAN 

In  the  Babylonian  and  Oriental  Record  for  October, 
1890,  and  again  in  the  Christian  Commonwealth,  Mr.  W. 
St.  C.  Boscawen  has  published  what  he  believes  to  be 
the  Chaldean  tradition  of  the  fall  of  man.  He  says  : 
"  In  one  of  the  Creation  tablets,  perhaps  the  third  of 
the  series,  there  occurs  near  the  end  a  most  remarkable 
passage. 

The  great  gods,  all  of  them  the  foretellers  of  fate, 

Entered  and  in  a  deadly  manner  the  god  Sar  was  filled  [with 

anger]. 
Wickedness  one  with  another  in  assembly  makes. 
The  word  was  established  in  the  garden  of  the  gods. 
They  had  eaten  the  asnan  fruit,  they  had  broken     .     .     . 

Its  jnice  they  sucked 

The  sweet  jnice  which  in  drinking  crushes  the  body. 

Great  is  their  sin     ...     in  exalting  [themselves]. 

To  Merodach  their  redeemer  he  has  appointed  the  destiny. 

It  is  clearly  to  be  seen,"  continues  Mr.  Boscawen,  "that 
here,  unfortunately  in  a  somewhat  mutilated  form,  we 
have  a  most  important  tradition.  It  has  the  important 
elements  common  to  the  Eebrew  tradition  of  the  anger 
of  the  god,  here  the  god  Sar,  the  god  of  'the  hosts  of 
heaven,'  the  'Lord  of  Hosts,'  who  punishes  with  death  ; 
the  eating  of  the  fruit  of  the  asnan  tree,  the  sin;  and 
tin;  appointment  of  Merodach  to  be  the  redeemer  of 
those  who  hud  sinned. 

"There  are  several    points  of  special  interest  in  this 


64  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

text.  In  the  first  place,  the  asnan  tree  is  most  remark- 
able. It  is  a  word  which  means  double  parallel,  and 
evidently  explains  the  reason  why  the  sacred  tree  on  the 
Assyrian  monuments  is  represented  with  two  stalks ; 
and  also,  I  think,  explains  the  confusion  between  the  two 
trees  in  the  Hebrew  Genesis,  the  tree  of  life  and  the  tree 
of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  .  .  .  Still  more  im- 
portant is  the  word  at  the  end  of  the  last  line  but  one, 
itellu  'they  exalted  themselves,'  when  we  consider  it  in 
connection  with  the  expression  in  the  Bible,  '  Behold, 
man  is  become  as  one  of  us  to  know  good  and  evil.'  I 
now  come  to  the  most  important  point  of  all,  and  one 
fortunately  on  which  there  can  be  no  doubt  on  the 
ground  of  mutilation  of  text.  'To  Merodach  their  re- 
deemer ho  appointed  the  destiny.'  Here  the  expres- 
sion admits  of  no  other  translation,  it  occurs  in  many 
inscriptions  with  the  meaning  of  '  restorer  of  satisfaction,' 
as  in  the  case  of  obtaining  satisfaction  for  war  or  rebel- 
lion. .  .  .  We  have,  therefore,  in  this  a  clear  indi- 
cation of  the  Messianic  office  of  Merodach  according  to 
the  Babylonian  teaching.  We  must  remember  also  that 
in  the  great  tablet  of  the  War  in  Heaven,  it  is  Merodach 
who  slays  the  serpent  and  crushes  the  brain  of  the  crea- 
ture— bruising  his  head.  I  venture,  therefore,  with  every 
confidence  to  say  that  in  this  little  but  priceless  fragment 
we  have  clear  indications  that  a  story  of  the  fall,  very 
closely  resembling  in  detail  that  of  Genesis  iii.,  was  cur- 
rent in  Babylonia  at  an  early  period." 

These  articles  by  Mr.  Boscawen  have  been  widely  cop- 
ied. The  scholarship  of  their  learned  author  has  been 
relied  upon  for  the  essential  accuracy  of  the  translation. 
In  this  instance,  however,  the  work  of  Mr.  Boscawen  is 
faulty.  According  to  the  context  and  to  a  comparison 
with  the  ninth  line  of  the  text,  the  characteristic  and  de- 
termining phrase  translated  "  in  the  garden  of  the  gods  " 


THE  TEMPTATION   OF   MAN  65 

should  be  rendered  "  at  a  feast."  The  asnan  tree,  in 
which  reference  is  seen  to  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil  and  on  the  ground  of  which  the  charge  of  con- 
fusion is  brought  against  the  Hebrew  narrative,  was 
probably  not  a  tree  at  all,  but  wheat  or  some  other  grain 
(Zinimern,  Busspsalmen,  S.  99;  Jensen,  Kosmologie,  S. 
279).  The  eating  of  the  asnan  fruit  is  an  act  of  the  gods 
themselves  and  not  of  man  ;  and  it  is  described,  not  as  a 
sin,  but  as  one  of  the  pleasures  of  the  repast.  The  destiny 
appointed  for  Marduk  is  not  that  of  redeemer,  but  of 
avenger;  and  he  is  not  sent  forth  in  behalf  of  sinners, 
but  to  avenge  the  gods  who  had  been  sinned  against. 
In  faet  the  passage  has  no  reference  at  all  to  the  garden 
of  Eden  and  the  fall  of  man.  It  occurs  in  the  Creation 
tablets  after  Marduk  has  offered  to  go  forth  against 
Tiamat  as  avenger  of  the  gods  and  before  ho  has  been 
commissioned  for  the  conflict.  It  tells  how  the  gods 
who  determine  destiny  entered  [perhaps  into  assembly 
for  consultation],  celebrated  a  feast  together,  appointed 
the  destiny  for  Marduk,  set  him  in  the  princely  chamber 
and,  when  he  had  acquiesced  in  their  investiture  of  him 
with  regal  authority,  hailed  him  as  now  numbered  among 
the  great  gods  and  as  their  authorized  avenger. 

No  trace  of  an  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  parallel  to  the 
Hebrew  narrative  of  the  temptation  has  yet  come  to 
light,  unless  it  exist  in  the  well-known  intaglio.  On  this 
celebrated  cylinder  seal  a  tree  is  engraved  ;  beneath  the 
boughs  of  foliage  two  bunches  of  fruit  hang  from  the 
trunk  on  long  naked  stems ;  on  each  side  of  the  tree  a 
being,  in  form  human,  is  seated  facing  the  tree  and  ex- 
tending the  hand  as  though  to  grasp  the  fruit ;  in  the 
rear  of  one  of  the  figures,  or  rather  between  the  backs 
of  the  two  (for  the  engraving  encircles  the  cylinder),  a 
serpent  is  seen  erect  as  though  standing.  The  picture 
at  once  strikes  the  beholder  as  a  representation  of  the 
5 


66  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

temptation.  All  the  elements  of  the  narrative  seem  to 
be  present.  Lenormant  asserts  that  "  it  does  not  lend 
itself  to  any  other  interpretation "  (Les  origines  de 
l'histoire,  p.  91),  and  Delitzsch  goes  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  it  is  the  fall  (Paradies,  S.  90). 

The  reference  to  the  temptation  is,  however,  problem- 
atical. Of  course  the  fact  that  the  figures  are  robed, 
wear  coverings  on  the  head,  and  sit  on  chairs  does  not 
militate  against  their  being  intended  to  represent  Adam 
and  Eve.  It  would  only  be  another  instance  of  the  cor- 
ruption to  which  traditions  were  subjected  in  Babylonia, 
and  another  example  of  the  superiority  of  the  Hebrew 
transmission.  Primitive  man  did  not  weave  cloth  and 
manufacture  stools ;  his  first  raiment  was  the  skin  of 
beasts.  But  still  the  reference  of  the  picture  to  the  fall 
of  man  is  doubtful.  Schrader  has  always  maintained 
that  an  allusion  to  the  fall  cannot  be  proved;  and  he 
points  out  that  a  specific  feature  of  the  narrative,  namely, 
that  the  woman  gave  the  fruit  to  the  man,  is  not  indicated 
(KAT  \,  S.  37).  The  workmanship  of  the  seal  is  rude  ; 
so  rude  indeed  that  it  is  not  clear  whether  one  of  the  fig- 
ures is  intended  for  a  woman,  or  whether  both  are  meant 
for  men.  Sayce  says  that  "  the  two  figures  seem  both  to 
be  males "  (Smith,  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  ed. 
Sayce,  p.  89).  Menant  also  believes  them  to  be  men 
(Glyptique  orientale,  Ie  P.,  p.  189  seq.).  Their  raiment 
affords  no  aid  in  determining  their  sex ;  for  each  wears 
a  plain  robe  which  reaches  to  the  ankles.  Nor  does  the 
different  head-gear  distinguish  them  as  man  and  wom- 
an, as  Delitzsch  asserts  that  it  does  (Paradies,  S.  90). 
In  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  art  the  horned  head-dress 
is  found  sometimes  on  the  head  of  a  god,  sometimes  on 
the  head  of  a  sacred  attendant,  sometimes  on  both  ;  and 
the  hat  or  turban  is  sometimes  worn  by  the  god,  and 
sometimes  by  the  worshipper.     Nor  does  the  presence 


Til  K   TKMITATluN    nF    MAN 


<;? 


of  the  serpent  decide  the  meaning  of  the  scene.  It  may 
have  been  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  ornament,  or  the 
better  to  distinguish  this  signet  from  others,  and  not  as 
significant  of  the  temptation.  Animals  of  various  kinds 
are  of  common  occurrence  on  the  seals  for  such  pur- 
poses. A  snake  is  figured  in  the  field  of  the  third  seal 
shown  on  the  page  of  illustrations  at  the  beginning  of 
this  chapter,  a  seal  which  represents  the  adoration  of  a 
god  and  strikingly  resembles  the  so-called  Adam  and  Eve 
cylinder  in  several  particulars ;  and  on  the  seal  repro- 
duced in  the  accompanying  cut,  in  which  events  in  the 
career  of  Izdubar  are  depicted,  the  serpent  and  other 
emblems  not  essential  to  the  story  are  introduced. 
While,  therefore,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  engraving 
on  the  so-called  Adam  and  Eve  seal  is  a  representation  of 
the  temptation,  yet  it  is  equally,  if  not  more,  probable 
that  it  depicts  a  god  receiving  adoration  from  a  priest 
or  other  worshipper. 


IZDUBAlt   AND   THE   BULL,  EADANI   AND   A   LION. 

A  serpent  separates  the  two  groups ;  in  the  Meld  are  also  a 
scorpion  and  a  bird. 


VII 

THE  SEEPENT   OF  THE  TEMPTATION 

The  thought  came  to  George  Smith,  as  it  has  come  to 
every  reader  of  Babylonian  tradition  since,  that  there 
may  be  some  connection  between  the  dragon  of  the  Chal- 
dean creation  story  and  the  serpent  of  Genesis.  The 
formidable  Tiamat,  commonly  called  a  dragon  because 
terrible  by  nature  and  represented  as  a  composite  mon- 
ster, was  the  disturber  of  order  and  the  enemy  of  the 
gods.  The  serpent  of  the  book  of  Genesis  sought  to 
undo  the  work  of  God  by  seducing  man  to  rebel  against 
his  maker.  The  idea  of  some  connection  betAveen  these 
two  foes  of  good  is  alluring,  but  on  reflection  it  does 
not  seem  probable. 

The  question  is  not  whether  the  Chaldean  story  of 
the  dragon  ever  furnished  the  prophets  of  Israel  with  im- 
agery to  set  forth  their  thought.  Sublime  literature  may 
legitimately  borrow  the  fancies  of  fable  and  appropriate 
them  to  its  own  use.  The  question  is  whether  the  con- 
ception of  the  dragon  foe  of  Marduk  and  the  serpent 
tempter  of  man  have  community  of  origin :  whether,  if 
traced  back  far  enough,  they  would  be  found  to  merge 
into  the  same  account  or,  if  not  that,  whether  one  would 
be  found  to  have  suggested  the  figure  of  the  other.  It  is 
this  which  on  reflection  does  not  seem  probable. 

The  accounts  of  the  conflict  of  Marduk  with  Tiamat 
and  of  the  temptation  of  man  are  not  counterparts.  They 
narrate  entirely  different  events.  So  much  is  clear.  But 
although  the  events  are  entirely  different,  the  same  evil 


THE  SERPENT  OF  THE  TEMPTATION       G9 

being  might  bo  a  prominent  participant  in  both.  The 
two  narratives  might  relate  to  different  episodes  in  the 
career  of  the  same  incarnate  agent  of  evil. 

Hebrew  literature  does  not  countenance  such  a  theory, 
despite  the  effort  that  has  been  made  to  prove  that  it 
does.  The  argument  has  been  advanced  that  in  Job,  in 
the  Psalms  and  in  Isaiah  there  are  allusions  to  the  Baby- 
lonian dragon-myth.  Sound  exegesis  casts  doubt  upon 
the  correctness  of  this  allegation  in  most,  if  not  all,  in- 
stances; but  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  that  question 
here.  The  more  plausible  it  can  be  made  that  "the  ori- 
gin of  Hahab  and  Leviathan  is  to  be  found  in  that  of 
Tiamat"  (PAOS.,  vol.  xv.  25),  the  clearer  does  it  become 
that  the  serpent  of  the  temptation  and  the  monster  of  the 
myth  were  sharply  defined  and  distinct  from  each  other 
in  the  Hebrew  mind.  In  the  book  of  Enoch,  further, 
"the  serpent  whose  name  is  Tabaet"  (  =  Tiamat,  sug- 
gests Barton,  PAOS.,  vol.  xv.  20  seq.)  is  distinguished  from 
the  wicked  angel  Gadrel  who  descended  to  earth  and  se- 
duced Eve.  It  is  not  until  the  Christian  era,  long  after 
the  exile,  centuries  after  the  story  of  Bel  and  the  dragon 
had  become  familiar  to  the  Jews,  that  there  is  any  sem- 
blance of  combining  striking  elements  of  the  two  narra- 
tives. It  has  been  conjectured  that  the  seer  of  Patmos 
had  the  story  of  Tiamat  in  mind  and  emplo}Ted  its  imag- 
ery when  he  drew  his  great  picture  of  the  dragon,  "the 
old  serpent,  he  that  is  called  the  devil  and  Satan.1'  Of 
course,  the  assumption  that  Tiamat  was  in  the  thought  of 
the  poet,  rather  than  the  imminerable  dragons  of  which 
men  have  dreamed,  is  groundless  ;  but  it  may  pass  un- 
challenged. Let  its  validity  be  granted.  With  the  fervid 
imagination  of  the  poet,  John  the  divine  seized  upon  the 
salient  features  of  the  two  arch-enemies,  and  blended  the 
borrowed  characteristics  in  a  new  creation  of  his  inspired 
genius.     But  in  doing  so  he  is  far  from  identifying  the 


70 


GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 


two  agents  of  evil.  The  devil  which  John  describes  is 
not  the  Tiamat  of  the  Babylonian  myth,  even  though  he 
embodies  in  Satan  certain  attributes  of  the  she-monster. 
The  art  and  literature  of  Babylonia,  at  present  avail- 
able, are  equally  at  variance  with  the  theory  that  Tia- 
mat's  conflict  with  Marduk  and  the  serpent's  seduction  of 
the  woman  are  but  different  episodes  in  the  career  of  the 
s;une  evil  being.  A  cylinder  seal,  of  which  a  sketch  is 
presented  herewith,  has  been  cited  to  the  contrary,  as 
affording  the  connecting  link  between  the  tempter-ser- 
pent and  the  monster  Tiamat.  The  seal  was  discovered 
by   Dr.  William  Hayes  Ward  in  the  possession  of  the 


late  Hon.  S.  Wells  Williams.  "  It  represents,"  to  quote 
Dr.  Ward's  detailed  explanation,  "  a  fleeing  serpent,  with 
its  head  turned  back  toward  a  deity,  who  is  swiftly  pur- 
suing it,  and  who  smites  it  with  a  weapon.  The  other 
figures  in  the  seal  have  no  relation  to  the  pursuit  of  the 
serpent  by  the  god.  They  are  put  in  by  the  engraver 
simply  to  fill  up  the  space,  although  all  separately  sig- 
nificant, no  doubt.  The  small  kneeling  figure  probably 
represents  the  owner  of  the  seal.  The  two  other  figures 
behind  the  god  represent  no  recognizable  deities,  and 
may  be  meant  for  priests.  Filling  up  the  smaller  spaces 
are  the  female  emblem  /ere/?,  six  planets,  or  perhaps 
stars  of  the  Pleiades,  and  two  smaller  branches,  which  it 
would  be  hazardous  to  regard  as  representing  the  two 
trees  of  the  garden  of  Eden "  (Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1881, 
p.  224). 


THE  SERPENT  OF  THE  TEMPTATION       71 

To  understand  the  significance  of  this  seal,  it  must 
bo  compared  with  others.  For  this  purpose  Dr.  Ward 
selects  a  cylinder  made  familiar 
by  George  Smith.  "It  will  be 
Been,"  says  Dr.  Ward,  "that  this 
is  very  much  like  Dr.  Williams' 
cylinder.  The  dragon,  which 
corresponds  with  the  serpent  iu 

the  latter,  is  in  the  attitude  of  retreat,  and  turns  its  head 
back  toward  its  pursuer,  who  is  running  rapidly  and  who 
>1  n:ots  it  with  an  arrow.  The  figure  of  the  priest  is  the 
same  (reversed),  and  of  the  kneeling  owner,  as  also  the 
representation  of  the  minor  accessories,  the  stars  and 
the  /creis,  although  the  winged  circle,  emblem  of  the  su- 
preme power,  replaces  the  crescent  of  the  moon-god. 
There  is  also  a  figure  of  a  winged  monster  represented 
under  the  feet  of  Bel,  for  which  there  was  not  room  on 
Dr.  Williams'  cylinder,  but  where  an  indistinct  line  or 
two  indicates  that  it  was  in  the  mind  of  the  engraver. 
It  was  very  likely  an  attendant  of  the  Dragon,  or  possi- 
bly of  Bel.  .  .  .  We  may,  then,  regard  this  new  seal 
of  Dr.  Williams  as  certainly  representing  the  conflict  of 
Bel  and  the  Dragon,  the  dragon  being  figured  as  a  serpent." 

Dr.  Ward  may  be  followed  thus  far,  but  no  farther. 
No  intermediate  story  is  implied  by  the  engraving  on 
the  seal,  as  he  presently  supposes.  The  scene  depicted 
on  the  cylinder  does  not  exhibit  a  tradition  in  which 
"the  demiurge  Bel-Merodach  attacks  and  punishes  the 
serpent  by  bruising  its  head."  It  has  no  likeness  to  the 
narrative  in  Genesis,  in  which  the  serpent  is  not  slain 
by  God,  as  pictured  on  the  seal,  but  is  condemned  to  go 
on  its  belly,  eat  dust,  and  be  bruised  on  the  head  by  the 
seed  of  the  woman.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  cylinder  tells  any  other  story  than  the  traditional 
conflict  of  Marduk  and  Tiamat.     The  scene  is  obviously 


72  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

the  same  as  that  depicted  on  the  other  seal,  which  is  un- 
questionably the  familiar  tale.  The  difference  is  one  of 
detail  only ;  the  beast,  instead  of  being  the  conventional 
dragon,  has  the  body  and  tail  of  a  serpent.  13ut  its 
head  is  delineated  with  the  familiar  features  of  the 
dragon;  it  has  the  two  ears,  the  proboscis-like  pro- 
jection in  front,  the  spines  on  the  neck.  It  has  the 
same  sex  as  the  dragon,  if  any  conclusion  may  be  drawn 
from  the  diamond  or  tcrek,  which  here,  as  frequently  on 
other  cylinders,  is  placed  near  it.  And  it  appears  to  be 
attacked  through  the  mouth,  as  was  the  great  she-mon- 
ster of  the  deep  in  the  story  as  told  by  the  tablets,  and 
as  depicted  on  the  companion  seal.  The  huge,  snake- 
like creature  is  one  of  the  variant  forms  wiiich  the  dread 
primeval  ocean  assumed  in  imagination.1  Indeed  the 
form  of  the  body  is  perhaps  an  adaptation  of  the  con- 
ventional mode  of  depicting  water,  and  serves  to  more 
positively  identify  the  monster  as  typical  of  the  sea. 
Water  is  thus  represented  under  a  boat  on  the  cylinder 
reproduced  in  the  next  chapter,  and  there,  as  here,  forms 
part  of  the  body  of  a  composite  creature.  The  picture 
on  the  "Williams'  seal  affords  no  evidence  of  a  story  es- 
sentially different  from  the  current  myth.  We  are  still 
dealing  with  the  conflict  of  Marduk  and  Tiamat,  the 
dragon  monster,  symbol  of  the  primeval  ocean  lashing  it- 
self to  fury. 

The  question  accordingly  resolves  itself  into  this : 
Wliether  in  ages  long  past,  when  the  story  of  the  compos- 
ite monster  Tiamat  and  the  account  of  the  tempter- ser- 
pent lay  side  by  side,  there  was  any  thought  that  these 
agents  of  evil  were  one  and  the  same  being  participating 
in  different  events,  or,  if  not  that,  whether  the  beast  of 

1  The  most  surprising  variation  is  the  occasional  representation,  in  sculpt- 
ure, of  the  dragon  as  a  male,  contrary  to  the  tradition  (see  illustration 
facing  p.  4).  Berosus  and  the  creation  tahlets  are  positive  and  emphatic  as 
to  the  sex  of  Tiamat,  and  the  name  itself  is  a  distinctly  feminine  formation. 


THE   SERPENT   OF   THE  TEMPTATION  73 

the  one  narrative  suggested  the  imagery  of  the  other. 
As  already  said,  this  is  improbable.     The  significance  of 

tlif  she-monster  is  perfectly  clear.  Her  name  told  every 
Semitic  Babylonian  that  she  was  not  a  reality,  but  a  per- 
sonification, a  symbol  of  the  sea.  The  story  itself  turned 
on  the  thought  of  the  engulfing  and  merciless  ocean  con- 
spiring with  the  huge  fantastic  masses  of  scurrying  fog 
and  cloud  to  overwhelm  the  world  and  reduce  the 
ordered  universe  to  primeval  watery  chaos,  but  defeated 
by  the  rays  of  the  unconquerable  sun.  To  set  forth 
these  things,  the  figure  of  the  composite  dragon  came 
unsought;  itself  a  creature  of  the  imagination,  a  beast 
unseen  on  earth  and  dimly  defined  to  the  mind,  but 
monstrous  in  form,  enormous  in  bulk,  and  terrible  in 
aspect  and  power. 

AVitlr  this  being  the  serpent  of  the  temptation  has 
nothing  in  common.  He  is  a  beast  of  the  field  and  licks 
the  dust.  The  tradition  in  which  he  is  an  actor  em- 
bodies a  moral,  and  not,  like  the  dragon-myth,  a  physical 
idea.  If  the  seducing  serpent  is  a  historical  fact,  its 
presence  in  the  tradition  is  due  to  its  participation  in 
the  event ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  narrative  of  the 
temptation  be  regarded  as  a  parable  and  the  serpent  as 
a  personification— a  theory  which  is  unproven — there  is 
still  no  substantial  ground  for  believing  that  the  tempter- 
serpent  either  suggested  the  image  of  the  dragon  or,  vice 
versa,  was  itself  suggested  by  the  story  of  that  mythical 
monster.  The  snake  is  a  natural  symbol  of  sin.  It 
comes  spontaneously  to  the  mind  ;  for  sin,  like  the  ser- 
pent, is  a  monster  of  hideous  mien  which  creeps  in  by 
stealth  and  infuses  poison  by  its  bite.1     Considered  in 

1  The  serpont  appears  as  aptly  in  a  parable  of  the  temptation  as  does  the 
like  reptile  in  the  poem  of  the  seven  evil  spirits,  which  has  been  already 
quoted : 

"  Lock  and  gate  do  not  exclude  them, 
In  at  the  door  like  a  snake  they  go, 
In  at  the  threshold  like  the  wind  they  blow." 


74  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

this  light,  the  only  light  which  can  at  present  guide  in- 
vestigation, "  some  original  connection  "  between  the 
tempter-serpent  and  the  dragon  Tiamat,  even  so  slight  as 
borrowed  imagery,  is  a  gratuitous  assumption. 

A  point  of  contact  with  the  tradition  of  the  temptation 
has  been  suggested  as  possibly  found  in  the  legend  of 
Izdubar.  "  Tsitnapishtim,  who  dwells  in  '  Paradise  '  (on 
the  '  island  of  the  blessed ' )  and  in  whose  possession  is 
a  plant  with  the  name  '  Aged  a  man  becomes  young,' 
gives  of  this  plant  to  Izdubar.  On  the  way  thence  to 
Erech,  it  is  taken  from  him  by  a  snake  (?).  Has  this 
plant  of  life,"  asks  Jensen,  from  whom  also  the  foregoing 
sentences  are  quoted,  "nothing  to  do  with  the  tree  of 
life  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  and  the  snake  (?),  nothing  to 
do  with  the  hostile  serpent  ? "  (Kosmologie,  S.  227). 
The  caution  which  puts  the  suggestion  in  the  form  of  a 
question  rather  than  of  a  declaration  is  well  observed. 
A  connection  between  the  garden  of  Eden  with  its  tree 
of  life  and  the  youth-renewing  plant  of  the  island  where 
the  Babylonian  Noah  dwells  in  the  enjoyment  of  im- 
mortality is  not  at  all  improbable.  There  is  also  no 
reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  word  snake,  for  the  reading 
of  the  cuneiform  character  which  represents  it  is  now 
regarded  as  certain  by  both  Delitzsch  and  Haupt,  the 
two  collators  of  the  text.  But  the  story  of  the  loss  of 
the  life  herb  by  a  descendant  of  Noah  cannot  be  regarded, 
and  doubtless  is  not  regarded  by  Jensen,  as  a  parallel 
to  the  tradition  of  the  temptation.  Izdubar  was  jour- 
neying homeward  with  a  plant  in  his  hand  which  had 
rejuvenating  virtue.  On  the  way  he  espied  a  well  and 
stopped  to  refresh  himself.  A  serpent  came  forth,  some- 
thing happened  to  the  marvellous  plant,1  a  demon  in  the 
form  of  a  lion  ascended  from  the  earth,  seized  the  herb 
and  disappeared.     Filled  with  dismay  Izdubar  exclaimed  : 

1  Jeremias  renders  :   ''  The  plant  slipped  from  rne  "  (Izdubar-Nimrod,  S.  40). 


THE  SERPENT   OF   THE   TEMPTATION  75 

"I  kavo  wrought  no  benefit  to  myself,  the  good  has 
accrued  to  the  liou  of  the  ground."  Now,  did  the  ser- 
pent of  tho  temptation  suggest  this  snake  detail  of  the 
story  of  Izdubar?  There  is  uo  reason  to  think  so  ;  for, 
though  the  theory  would  he  acceptable  and  would  in  no- 
wise disparage  the  Hebrew  account,  it  finds  scant  support 
in  the  tale,  tho  snake  playing  so  insignificant  a  part. 
The  snake  had  less  to  do  with  Izdubar's  loss  of  the  plant 
than  the  lion  of  the  ground  had  and  is  less  conspicuous 
in  tho  narrative. 

It  remains  to  exhibit  the  Hebrew  doctrine  of  tho  se- 
ducing serpent.  The  temptation  to  sin  came  from  with- 
out. The  tempter-serpent  is  a  real  serpent,  for  it  is 
compared  with  the  beasts  of  the  field,  a  comparison 
which  would  be  pointless  if  tho  serpent  described  were 
not  one  of  them  ;  it  possessed  a  natural  characteristic  of 
serpents,  namely,  subtilty  ;  and  the  curse  pronounced 
upon  it  rests  upon  tho  serpent  as  an  animal. 

The  serpent  tempted  in  his  subtilty.  The  docility  of 
the  serpent  and  its  tamableness  were  early  discerned,  its 
wisdom  was  proverbial  (Matt.  x.  16),  its  wiliness  and 
spitefulness  were  matters  of  general  belief.  Before  the 
domestication  of  the  horse  and  the  dog,  while  the  beasts 
remained  in  their  natural  state,  the  serpent  ranked  high 
among  animals  for  apparent  intelligence  and  skill  in 
securing  prey. 

The  serpent  of  the  temptation  possessed  the  natural 
attribute  of  subtilty  in  an  extraordinary  and  supernatu- 
ral degree.  The  language  employed  is  like  that  used  in 
reference  to  Samson  :  "  his  "  strength  is  spoken  of,  and 
the  strength  of  that  man  of  might  was  the  natural  attri- 
bute of  man  possessed  in  an  extraordinary  degree  through 
the  working  of  God's  spirit  (Judg.  xvi.  5,  9,  17,  with  20 
and  28).  Eve  saw  a  snake,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  she  opined  more  ;  but  back  of  the  serpent 


76  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TItADITION 

was  an  evil  spirit  (cp.  the  swine,  Mk.  v.  13).  This  was 
current  interpretation  in  Israel,  when  insight  into  religi- 
ous truth  was  clear.  The  writer  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solo- 
mon says  that  death  came  into  the  world  through  the 
envy  of  the  devil  (ii.  23).  Christ  seems  to  have  the  same 
thought  in  mind  when  he  says  :  "  The  devil  was  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning  :  when  he  speaketh  a  lie,  he 
speaketh  of  his  own,  for  he  is  a  liar  and  the  father 
thereof "  (John  viii.  44).  Paul  who  speaks  of  the  ser- 
pent beguiling  Eve  in  his  craftiness,  elsewhere,  in  evi- 
dent reference  to  the  curse  upon  the  serpent,  alludes  to 
God  bruising  Satan  under  our  feet  (2  Cor.  xi.  3  ;  Rom. 
xvi.  20).  John,  elucidating  the  imagery  of  his  visions, 
explains  that  the  dragon  which  he  sees  in  a  certain  con- 
nection is  a  type  of  "the  old  serpent,  him  that  is  called 
the  devil  and  Satan,  the  deceiver  of  the  whole  world " 
(Rev.  xii.  9). 

The  serpent  of  the  temptation  addressed  the  woman. 
Yet  according  to  the  narrative  the  animals  of  Paradise 
were  unable  to  talk.  Man  differed  from  them  in  pos- 
sessing the  power  of  speech.  He  gave  names  to  the 
beasts  about  him,  for  they  as  speechless  creatures  were 
unable  to  do  this  for  themselves  (Keil).  The  serpent  ad- 
dressed the  woman  in  words  produced  by  the  power  of 
Satan  (cp.  the  demoniacs  and  Num.  vii.  89). 

As  punishment  for  its  participation  in  the  sin,  the 
serpent-tempter  is  condemned  to  go  on  its  belly,  eat 
dust,  and  to  engage  henceforth  in  mortal  struggle  with 
mankind.  The  words  of  the  curse  do  not  necessarily 
mean  that  the  serpent  had  walked  before  it  seduced 
man.  It  is  remarkable  that  neither  in  the  judicial  sen- 
tence nor  in  the  earlier  reference  to  the  serpent  in  verso 
1,  is  anything  said  about  its  mode  of  locomotion  (Dill- 
mann).  It  may  always  have  crept;  the  punishment 
being  that  henceforward  its  creeping  and  its  eating  or 


THE   BEBPENT   OF  THE  TEMPTATION  77 

linking  dust  (Mic.  vii.  17  ;   Is.  xlix.  23)  shall  be  a  symbol 

of  degradation  and  a  memorial  of  its  part  in  man's  first 
disobedience. 

Though  an  irresponsible  brute  beast,  tho  serpent  was 
included  in  the  curse.  According  to  the  Mosaic  law  a 
beast,  which  Mas  made  the  hapless  victim  of  man's  un- 
lawful lust,  is  condemned  to  death  (Lev.  xx.  15  seq.). 
So  the  serpent,  although  not  itself  accountable,  was  put 
under  the  curse  because  it  had  been  used  as  an  instru- 
ment of  sin.  Cut  the  scope  of  the  curse  is  wider ;  the 
sentence  addressed  to  the  serpent  terminates,  not  on  tho 
bodily  form,  but  on  the  indwelling,  intelligent  spirit. 
The  body  of  the  serpent  was  but  the  tool,  the  inhabiting 
spirit  was  the  guilty  agent. 


VIII 

THE  CHERUBIM 

The  identity  of  the  cherubim  with  the  winged  man- 
headed  bulls  of  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  sculpture  was 
mooted  as  soon  as  excavation  brought  to  light  these 
colossal  stone  steers  (see  e.g.  Kitto,  Cyclopaedia,  cut  232  ; 
Layard,  Discoveries  among  the  Ruins  of  Nineveh  and 
Babylon,  p.  549  ;  Studien  u.  Krit.,  1871,  S.  403).  The 
theory  received  impulse  from  the  reported  discovery  of 
the  word  Jrirubu  in  a  magical  text  where  in  corresponding 
inscriptions  shedu,  or  some  other  name  of  the  winged 
human-headed  steers,  is  used.  Schrader  states  that  Le- 
normant  wrote  to  him  in  the  year  1873  of  the  existence  of 
a  Babylonian  amulet  in  the  possession  of  M.  de  Clercq,  on 
which  ki-ru-bu  is  found  in  the  place  occupied  by  shcclu  in 
similar  legends  ;  and  Schrader  adds  that  "  this  informa- 
tion, if  confirmed,  would  prove  the  Babylonian  origin  of 
the  cherubim  and  their  identity  with  the  colossal  winged 
bulls  which  guard  the  entrance  to  temple  and  palace,  or 
at  least  with  the  divine  beings  which  these  colossal  fig- 
ures represent  (KAT2.,  S.  39  f.). 

At  a  later  date  Lenormant  himself  spoke  definitely  in 
print.  "  It  is  certain,"  he  sa}Ts,  "  that  the  winged  bull 
with  a  human  head  was  called  Turvbu.  The  talismanic 
monument  belonging  to  the  collection  of  M.  Louis  de 
Clercq  employs  the  term  kirub  (written  phonetically  ki- 
ru-bu)  where  shedu  or  the  corresponding  idiographic 
group  is  found  elsewhere  "  (Les  origines  de  l'histoire,  p. 
118,  Eng.  tr.,  p.  126).    In  the  same  connection,  the  French 


SEAL    WITH   THE    ENGKAVING 

which  Lenormant  has  compared  with  Ezekiel'a 

vision  of  cherabim  bearing  the  throne 

of  Jehovah. 


D 


WINGED    HUMAN-HEADED    BULLS 

stationed  at  a  gateway  of  Sargon's  palace.     The  arch  that  once  spanned  the 

passage  Bprang  from  the  heads  of  the  larger  bulls.    Height  of 

larger  bulls,  eighteen  feet. 


THE   CHERUBIM  79 

savant  drew  attention  to  the  scone  engraved  on  a  cylin- 
der seal,  in  which  he  saw  the  counterpart  of  the  imagery 
of  Ezekiel's  vision.  The  prophet  beheld  "four  living 
creatures"  or  cherubim  which,  in  Lenormant's  opinion, 
were  arranged  two  and  two,  back  to  back,  and  went  "  each 
one  straightforward"  toward  the  four  quarters.  Over 
their  heads  and  borne  by  them  was  a  crystal  pavement; 
and  above  the  pavement  the  likeness  of  a  throne,  as  the 
appearance  of  a  sapphire  stone,  and  upon  the  throne  tho 
likeness  as  of  a  man  enveloped  in  shining  light.  It  was 
the  appearance  of  the  likeness  of  the  glory  of  God.  On 
the  cylinder  seal  referred  to  is  depicted  a  marvellous  boat 
terminating  at  each  end  in  a  human  half-figure.  On  tho 
boat  two  winged  bulls,  each  with  the  face  of  a  man,  stand 
back  to  back.  Their  position  necessarily  presupposes 
two  other  like  animals  hidden  by  them,  which  support 
the  other  side  of  the  pavement  that  they  bear  on  their 
shoulders.  On  this  pavement  is  a  throne  ;  upon  which  a 
bearded  god  is  seated,  clad  in  a  long  robe,  with  a  tiara 
on  his  head  and  a  short  sceptre  and  a  ring  in  his  hand. 
By  his  side  stands  a  personage  of  inferior  size  as  though 
awaiting  his  commands ;  like  the  man  in  tho  vision  of 
the  tenth  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  the  man  clothed  in  linen 
with  the  writer's  ink-horn  by  his  side  who  receives  the 
commands  of  Jehovah. 

Friedrich  Delitzsch  has  also  adopted  the  theory  of  the 
identity  of  the  cherubim  with  tho  colossal  winged  bulls 
of  Babylonia.  The  argument  as  recast  by  him  is,  1.  The 
living  beings  with  wings  of  bird  and  face  of  man  which 
Ezekiel  describes :  bear  a  remarkable  external  resem- 
blance to  the  winged  human-headed  bulls  of  Babylonia. 
2.  The  function  of  tho  colossal  steers  of  Babylonia  is 
also  the  same  as  that  of  the  cherubim  of  the  Hebrews: 
they  stand  as  watchers  at  the  entrance  of  temples  and 

1  They  have,  however,  the  face  of  eagle,  ox,  and  lion  as  well  as  that  of  man. 


80  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

palaces,  guarding  the  precincts  from  intrusion  ;  and 
they  appear-— as  e.g.  on  the  boat  engraved  on  the  cylin- 
der— like  the  cherubim  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  as  bearers  of 
the  throne  of  God.1  3.  The  strongest  evidence  exists, 
however,  in  the  interchangeabilitj  of  the  names  hirutm 
and  shedu,  as  is  proven  by  the  inscription  in  the  posses- 
sion of  M.  Louis  de  Clercq  (Paradies,  S.  150-153). 

Twenty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  letter  of  Le- 
normant  was  written  to  Schrader.  The  talismanic  mon- 
ument has  not  been  produced  in  public,  it  would  seem, 
and  its  reading  remains  unconfirmed.  The  cautious- 
ness observed  by  Schrader  in  basing  an  argument  on  it 
is  commended  by  a  recent  writer  who  signs  himself  v.  F. 
(ZA.,  vol.  i,  68-70).  "  None  other  of  the  Assyriologists," 
he  says  further,  "who  know  the  collection  of  M.  de 
Clercq,  has  confirmed  the  news  ;  "  and  he  concludes  his 
note  on  the  subject  with  the  remark  that,  "  so  long  as 
nothing  authentic  is  known  in  regard  to  the  amulet 
which  is  at  present  in  the  possession  of  M.  de  Clercq, 
we  must  acknowledge  that  proof  has  not  been  furnished 
of  the  employment  of  the  word  kirubu  to  designate  the 
Assyrian  bull  divinities." 

Boscawen  seeks  to  identify  the  scorpion  men,  aqrabu- 
amelu,  who  guarded  the  way 
which  Izdubar  was  obliged  to 
pass,  with  the  cherubim  of 
Genesis  (B.  and  O.  Record, 
vol.  iii.,  145  seq.).  The  duties 
which  devolved  upon  the 
aqrabu-men  and  the  cherubim 
are  somewhat  similar,  but  the 
names  are  not  akin.  Aqrabu,  nipy,  etc.,  have  no  etymo- 
logical connection  with  ST1D. 

1  Delitzsch  holds  also  that  the  seven  demons  of  Babylonian  mythology  are 
"  in  last  analysis  identical  with  the  bull  divinities"  and  "  are  repeatedly  called 


THE   CHERUBIM  81 

So  much  as  to  the  efforts  made  to  lind  the  counterpart  of 
the  Hebrew  cherubim  in  Babylonian  thought  and  art.  But 
what  were  they  in  themselves?  What  was  their  nature? 
Cheyne  sees  hi  the  cherub  "  a  form  of  speech  retained 
from  myth-making  times,  and  meaning  the  storm-cloud 
or  (as  Professor  Tiele  suggests)  the  cloud  masses  which 
Beem  to  guard  the  portals  of  the  sky,  and  on  which  the 
sun  god  appears  to  issue  forth  at  break  of  day  "  (Proph- 
ecies of  Isaiah,  vol.  i.,  p.  115,  ii.,  298).  Now  if  cherub 
is  a  common  noun  and  means  storm-cloud — a  natural 
object  to  which  Semitic  nature  worshippers  would,  of 
course,  at  once  ascribe  a  spirit— the  imagery  of  the 
psalmist  is  satisfied  when  he  says  :  "  Thick  darkness  was 
under  his  feet  and  he  rode  upon  a  cherub  and  did  i\y  ;  yea, 
he  flewT  swiftly  upon  the  wings  of  the  wind  "  (Ps.  xviii. 
9-10).  If  it  means  storm-cloud,  much  that  is  predicated 
of  the  cherubim  is  also  met ;  for  the  storm-cloud  moves 
through  space,  could  bear  the  visible  glory  of  Jehovah, 
betoken  his  indignation,  and  warn  against  intruding  into 
his  presence.  If  cherubim  signify  storm-clouds,  they 
could  also  be  stationed  at  the  entrance  of  the  garden 
with  the  flaming  lightning  to  keep  the  way  to  the  tree 
of  life.  It  is  impossible,  however,  that  the  storm-cloud 
as  a  thing  animated  and  revered  as  divine  by  heathen 
polytheists  is  intended  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures;  and 
it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  the  interpretation  of  the 
word  cherub  as  a  common  noun  meaning  merely  the 
storm-cloud    with   the    biblical    descriptions    in    which 

the  'throne-bearers  of  the  gods,'  thus  resembling  the  Merkaba  [or  cherubim]  of 
K/'kiel"  (Paradies,  S.  152).  But  this  resemblance  vanishes  if,  as  Jensen 
argues,  the  word  guzaMt,  translated  "throne-bearer,"  means  rather  "  a  com- 
missioner "  (Koamologie,  S.  890).  And  there  is  no  proof  that  the  seven  demons 
are  "in  last  analysis  identical  with  the  bull  divinities."  They  are  indeed 
like  the  bulls  called  shedu  ;  bnt  this  means  that  the  seven  demons  and  the 
bulls  belong  to  the  category  of  inferior  supernatural  beings,  for  as  is  well 
known  shedu  is  a  general  designation  for  demon,  whether  good  or  evil.  It  is 
the  Hebrew  word  ~[EJ. 
G 


82  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

cherubim  are  represented,  emblematically  it  is  true, 
yet  distinctly,  as  intelligent  beings  with  strength  like 
the  ox,  courage  like  the  lion,  flight  like  the  eagle ; 
celestial  beings,  it  would  seem,  with  special  office,  com- 
missioned to  bear  Jehovah's  glory,  indicate  his  nearness, 
and  guard  his  presence  from  intrusion.  Now  Franz 
Delitzsch  believed  with  Cheyne  that  "  in  Ezekiel  as  in 
other  parts  of  the  Bible  Ave  trace  the  connection  between 
the  cherubim  and  the  thunder-storm,  in  which  God 
manifests  himself.  There  is  the  same  fire  of  lightning 
running  to  and  fro,  and  the  same  roar  as  of  rumbling 
wheels. "  And  he  held  the  cherub  to  be  "a  creation  of 
Semitic  heathenism  which  deified  the  powers  of  nature  " 
(Schaff-Herzog,  Art.  Cherubim  ;  Delitzsch,  Genesis5,  S. 
114).  But  he  was  not  blind  to  the  fact  that  the  biblical 
writers  represent  the  cherubim  as  animate  beings.  How 
then  does  he  reconcile  the  two  conceptions  ?  He  thinks 
that  after  the  storm-cloud  had  been  deified  by  the  heathen, 
it  was  denied  deity  by  the  Hebrews,  but  left  animate. 
It  was  not  a  storm-cloud  lowering  in  the  sky,  it  was  not 
a  mere  power  of  nature,  and  it  was  not  a  god  ;  yet  it  was 
animate.  "  The  religion  of  revelation  depotentiated  the 
cherubs  as  it  did  other  heathen  deifications  of  natural 
forces,  making  of  them  powers  (Svvd/x€i<;)  subordinated 
to  the  Lord  of  hosts  (/cvpeos  rcov  Svvdfiewv).  It  proceeded 
on  the  conception  that  there  is  a  heaven  where  God  is 
surrounded  by  superhuman  beings,  among  whom  are 
those  who  belong  in  the  immediate  presence  of  him  avIio 
sits  on  the  throne,  are  his  bearers  when  he  is  manifesting 
himself  in  his  glory  in  the  world,  and  are  the  guardians 
of  the  place  of  his  presence,  warding  off  everything  un- 
like in  character  and  unprivileged  to  approach." 

This  is  the  explanation  offered  by  the  devout  Franz 
Delitzsch.  The  facts  are  perhaps  not  all  in,  upon  which 
the  final  solution  of  the  question  depends ;  but  in  tho 


THE   CHERUBIM  83 

meanwhile  it  must  be  confessed  that  Delitzsch  has 
erected  a  stupendous  theory  on  scanty  evidence.  When 
the  testimony  that  is  offered  is  sifted,  the  interpretation  of 
cherub  as  storm-cloud  seems  to  rest,  first,  upon  the  pas- 
sage in  the  Psalms  where  it  is  said  of  Jehovah  that 
"thick  darkness  was  under  his  feet  and  he  rode  upon  a 
cherub  and  did  fly  ;  yea,  he  Hew  swiftly  upon  the  wings 
of  the  wind  : "  and  secondly,  upon  the  possibility  of  dis- 
cerning the  lightning  in  "  the  flame  of  a  sword  which 
turned  every  way,  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life." 
In  the  great  body  of  passages,  however,  which  relate  to 
the  cherubim  a  reference  to  the  storm-cloud  is,  to  say  the 
least,  not  manifest.  Moreover,  the  evident  difficulty 
which  Delitzsch  experiences  in  reconciling  the  prepon- 
derating or,  quite  possibly,  constant  biblical  description  of 
the  cherubim  as  intelligent  beings  with  the  interpretation 
of  the  word  cherub  as  storm-cloud  is  against  such  inter- 
pretation. A  minor  feature  of  the  delineation  is  forced  to 
outbalance  the  major  feature.  Likewise,  no  conclusive 
evidence  has  yet  been  furnished  that  the  winged,  hunian- 
headed  bulls  of  Babylonia  symbolized  the  storm-cloud. 
This  explanation  of  the  bull  divinities  also  seems  to  rest 
ultimately  upon  the  passage  quoted  from  the  Hebrew 
psalm,  the  idea  deduced  from  the  words  of  the  Hebrew 
poet  being  imposed  upon  the  Babylonian  bulls.  Indeed 
the  Babylonians  represented  the  storm-cloud  as  a  bird, 
the  well-known  Zu  bird ;  while  the  winged,  human- 
headed  bulls  seem,  like  the  Hebrew  cherubim,  to  typify 
beings  with  the  strength  of  an  ox,  the  free  motion  of  a 
bird,  and  the  intelligence  of  a  man.1 

"Whatever  may  have  been  denoted  by  the  cherubim  and 

1  No  evidence  has  been  adduced  to  prove  that  "  the  bull  begotten  of  the  god 
Zu"  (IV  R.  2:! ;  cited  by  Cheyne,  Isaiah,  vol.  ii.  2%)  has  any  reference  to  the 
winged,  human-headed  bulls.  Professor  Sayce  thinks  that  the  colossal  bulls 
which  guarded  the  entrance  to  temple  and  palace  "  represented  divine  beings, 
the  gods  or  genii  of  the  household  "  (Hibbert  Lectures,  1S87,  p.  390). 


84  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

whatever  be  the  outcome  of  the  search  after  analogues 
among  other  peoples,  it  is  important  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that  the  delineations  of  them  in  art  and  their  forms 
as  seen  in  vision  were,  like  modern  pictures  of  angels, 
symbols  only.  The  representation  in  wood,  stone,  or 
embroidered  cloth,  and  the  evanescent  appearance  which 
ilitted  before  the  mind  of  seer,  awakening  a  sense  of  the 
dread  presence  of  God  and  quickening  expectancy  of  a 
manifestation  of  his  glory,  were  not  regarded  as  the  thing 
itself.  They  were  not  always  the  same  in  form,  for  they 
resulted  from  the  struggle  to  approximate  the  truth  ; 
they  were  felt  to  fall  below  the  conception  ;  they  were 
known  to  be  merely  the  image  which  betokened  the 
greater  reality.  In  the  account  of  the  garden  of  Eden, 
the  writer  is  not  speaking  of  images  placed  at  the  portal, 
but  of  the  reality  itself,  stationed  to  keep  the  way. 


IX 

CAIN   AND   ABEL 

The  search  which  has  been  prosecuted  in  Babylonian 
literature  for  counterparts  to  the  Hebrew  records  has  not 
been  neglected  in  the  case  of  the  narrative  of  Cain  and 
Abel.  Professor  Sayee  has  thrown  out  suggestions  in 
his  Hibbert  Lectures  which  tend  to  identify  the  god 
Tammuz  with  Abel.1  His  argument  is  best  presented  by 
copious  quotation.  "  Tamniuz,"  he  says,  "  must  have 
been  the  primitive  Sun-god  of  Eridu.  ...  It  is 
even  possible  that  the  boar  whose  tusk  proved  fatal  to 
Adonis  [the  Greek  Tammuz]  may  originally  have  been 
Adar  [the    Sun-god  of  Nipur  (p.  153)]  himself.     Adar 

.  .  Mas  called  the  '  lord  of  the  swine  '  in  the  Accadi- 
an  period,  and  the  Semitic  abhorrence  of  the  animal  may 
have  used  it  to  symbolize  the  ancient  rivalry  between  the 
Sun-god  of  Nipur  and  the  Sun-god  of  Eridu.  Those 
who  would  see  in  the  Cain  and  Abel  of  Scripture  the  rep- 
resentatives of  elemental  deities  and  who  follow  Dr.  Op- 
pert  in  explaining  the  name  of  Abel  by  the  Babylonian 
ablu,  l  the  son,'  slightly  transformed  by  a  popular  etymol- 

1  For  other  suggestions — some  based  on  mistranslations,  due  of  course  not  to 
lack  of  scholarship  on  the  part  of  the  translator,  but  to  the  unadvanced  stage 
of  the  science — all  dubious  and  speculative  and  making  no  claim  of  furnishing 
a  document  parallel  to  the  Hebrew  tradition,  see  Lenormant,  Les  origines  de 
l'histoire,  chap,   iv 


86  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

ogy,  may  be  inclined  to  make  them  the  Aclar  and  Tam- 
miiz  of  Chaldean  faith."  The  name  Tanimnz  means  in 
"  the  original  Accadian  '  the  son  of  life  '  .  .  .  inter- 
preted by  the  Semites  as  meaning  'the  offspring.'"1 
"  As  Abel  in  the  Old  Testament  is  '  a  keeper  of  sheep,'  so, 
too,  Tammuz  in  Babylonia  was  accounted  a  shepherd." 
"  The  title  '  lord  of  the  pig  '  connects  Adar  with  the 
Ares  of  Greek  mythology,  who  in  the  form  of  the  wild 
boar  slew  the  Sun-god  Tammuz  ;  while  the  title  [also 
applied  to  him]  '  lord  of  the  date  ' — the  chief  fruit  of 
Babylonia — reminds  us  of  Cain,  who  was  '  a  tiller  of  the 
ground  '  "  (Hibbert  Lectures,  pp.  236,  232,  245,  and  153, 
note  6  ;  and  cp.  p.  186). 

The  combination  of  facts  and  fancies  presented  in  these 
extracts  is  ingenious,  but  the  particulars  have  no  eviden- 
tial value. 

1.  Tammuz  indeed  probably  means  "  son  of  life  "  and 
Abel  may  be  a  modification  of  the  Assyrian  word  aplu, 
son.  But  these  facts  are  far  from  establishing  the  iden- 
tity of  the  two.  The  name  in  each  case  has  its  occasion 
and  its  appropriateness.  The  god  who,  though  dying  an- 
nually, returns  to  life  with  each  recurring  year,  is  beautiful- 
ly and  aptly  named  "  son  of  life."  The  bare  and  bald 
word  son  likewise  might  be  fittingly  bestowed  on  the 
child  Abel,  corresponding  to  the  appellatives  Adam  hu- 
man being,  Eve  life,  Cain  formation  :  but  it  would  not 
be  more  appropriate  than  the  designation  breath,  vanity, 
the  posthumous  name  given  to  him  which  told  the  story 
of  his  untimely  end,  and  the  name  by  which  in  fact  he 
was  remembered. 

2.  Abel  was  a  keeper  of  sheep ;  and  Tammuz,  it  is 
true,  was  likewise  called  a  shepherd.     The  passage  cited 

1  Not,  however,  as  meaning  "the  only  son,"  as  might  be  gathered  from  Pro- 
fessor Sayce's  additional  statement ;  at  least  not  so  interpreted  in  the  pas- 
sage cited  in  proof,  II  R.  150,  54. 


CAIN  AND    ABEL  87 

in  proof  forms  the  introduction  to  a  brief  text  (  IV  It.  27, 
No.  1),  of  which  the  first  two  lines  are  as  follows  : 

"  Shepherd,  lord,  god  Tammuz,  husband  of  goddess  Ishtar, 
King   of  the  nether   world,  king   of  the  [watery]  abode,  shep- 
herd." 

But  the  title  given  to  the  god  is  not  distinctive.  It  does 
not  belong  exclusively  to  Tammuz.  The  god  Gir,  son 
of  Shamash,  whom  Professor  Sayco  Avill  scarcely  identify 
with  Tammuz  after  what  he  has  said  on  p.  233,  is  also 
called  a  shepherd  (ASKT.,  p.  105,  10).  Nor  does  the 
title  describe  Tammuz  as  a  keeper  of  sheep.  It  is  figu- 
rative. It  was  in  constant  use  as  a  synonym  for  ruler. 
As  Professor  Sayce  himself  says  (p.  245) :  "  The  Chal- 
deans were  a  people  of  agriculturists  and  herdsmen  ;  their 
moiiarchs  were  addressed  as  shepherds."  The  fact  that 
Tammuz  is  called  a  shepherd  affords,  therefore,  no  proof 
of  any  intention  to  describe  him  as  a  keeper  of  sheep  or 
even  as  patron  of  a  guild.     He  is  hailed  as  ruler.1 

3.  Whether  Tammuz  be  regarded  as  symbolical  of  the 
sun  dying  in  winter  and  reviving  with  the  return  of 
spring,  or  as  the  sun-god  of  spring  whose  foe  was  the 
summer  heat  (Sayce,  Hibbcrt  Lectures,  p.  231),  or  as  the 
vegetation  of  spring  destroyed  by  the  scorching  rays  of 
the  eastern  sun  (Jensen,  Kosmologie,  S.  -180),  the  essen- 
tial idea  in  the  nature-myth  was  the  annual  return  of 
Tammuz  to  life.  Tin?  revival  of  the  dead  god  is  the  pith 
of  the  tale.  But  Abel  whom  Cain  slew  rose  not  again  : 
his  life   on  earth  was    extinguished ;    as    a    link    in   the 

1  In  another  passage  in  which  Professor  Sayce,  assuming  an  error  to  have 
been  committed  by  the  writer  of  the  tablet,  sees  a  reference  to  "  some  deity, 
probably  Tammuz,  who  is  called  'the  divine  son'  in  the  Accadian  text" 
(Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  489),  and  who  is  presently  termed  shepherd,  it  is  the 
translator  and  not  the  Assyrian  scribe  who  is  at  fault  There  is  no  allusion  to 
Tammuz.  The  word  which  is  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  forms  part  of 
the  royal  name  Ashurbanipal,  and  the  paragraph  is  a  prayer  in  behalf  of  that 
monarch.     King  Ashurbanipal  is  the  shepherd. 


88  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TKADITION 

genealogical  chain  he  dropped  out,  the  godly  line  of 
Adam  descended  through  another. 

The  Hebrew  narrative  stands  accordingly  as  yet  alone. 
The  Hebrew  scriptures  furnish  the  only  document  known 
in  which  tho  tradition  has  been  transmitted  and  can  be 
studied.  The  preservation  of  the  tradition  by  the  relig- 
ious teachers  of  Israel  was  due  to  its  ethical  value.  It 
exhibits  the  conduct  that  is  acceptable  to  God  and  traces 
the  downward  progress  of  sin. 

The  two  brothers  on  reaching  man's  estate  devoted 
themselves  the  one  to  agriculture,  the  other  to  the  tend- 
ing of  flocks.  In  process  of  time  each  brought  an  offer- 
ing unto  the  Lord.  The  offerings  were  alike  in  being 
valuable  gifts,  the  product  of  the  offerer's  daily  toil,  pre- 
sented unto  the  same  God ;  yet  "  the  Lord  had  respect 
unto  Abel  and  to  his  offering,  but  unto  Cain  and  to  his 
offering  he  had  not  respect."  God  looked  on  the  char- 
acter of  the  man  (as  is  evident  from  v.  7).  Abel  was  ac- 
cepted because  his  heart  was  right  towards  God  :  he  was 
righteous  (Mat.  xxiii.  35  ;  1  John  iii.  12)  ;  he  believed  at 
least  that  God  is,  and  that  God  is  the  rewarder  of  them 
that  diligently  seek  him,  and  he  conformed  his  conduct 
to  this  belief.  Cain,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  wicked 
man,  and  his  character  was  speedily  revealed  to  the 
world.  Instead  of  being  incited  to  earnest  searching  of 
heart  because  his  offering  was  rejected,  he  allowed  anger 
to  fill  his  soul,  refused  the  exhortation  to  strive  against 
sin,  committed  murder,  and  became  hardened,  denying 
knowledge  of  his  brother's  whereabouts  and  disclaiming 
responsibility  for  him  ;  and  when  judgment  was  passed 
on  the  awful  deed,  he  manifested  no  regrets  for  the  sin 
but  only  concern  about  the  punishment.  Such  a  fearful 
advance  had  man  made  in  the  career  of  wickedness. 

God  had  accepted  Abel  and  his  offering,  and  had  re- 
jected Cain.     At  the  dawn  of  history  the  cardinal  truth 


CAIN   AND    ABEL  8U 

was  made  known  to  man  that  "  the  sacrifice  of  the  wicked 
is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord,  but  the  prayer  oi'  the  up- 
right is  his  delight"  (Prov.  xv.  8).1 

1  In  this  narrative  the  writer  tacitly  assumes  that  man  was  increasing  on 
the  earth.  Cain  foreboded  danger  at  the  hands  of  his  kindred  as  soon  as  Ins 
foul  deed  should  become  known  to  them.  Relationships  were  constantly  be- 
coming more  remote.  There  were  people  more  closely  bound  by  blood  and 
interest  and  affection  to  the  one  brother  than  to  the  other,  and  Cain  expressed 
the  fear  that  the  impulse  to  take  vengeance  would  be  followed.  The  increase 
of  man  on  earth  is  involved  in  Cain's  marriage  also.  He  had  a  wife  ;  his  sis- 
ter perhaps  or  his  half-sister  or  his  niece.  In  early  ages  no  impropriety  ex- 
isted or  was  felt  in  such  marriages.  Abraham  had  a  half-sister  t>>  wife, 
and  Nahor  a  niece  (Gen.  xx.  12;  si.  27,  ~J)  ;  and  Egyptian  princes  not  in- 
fnipicntly  married  their  sisters. 


CAINITES   AND   SETHITES. 

Sanchoniathon,  the  "  philosopher  of  Tyre,"  has  given 
the  Phoenician  account  of  the  origin  and  development  of 
human  civilization.  This  description  of  man's  progress 
presents  points  of  contact,  and  is  frequently  compared, 
with  the  genealogy  and  work  of  the  Cainites  as  recorded 
in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  Phoenician  his- 
torian, as  reported  by  Eusebius  from  Philo  of  liyblos, 
wrote  as  follows : 

"  Of  the  wind  Kolpia  arid  his  wife  Baau,  which  is  interpreted 
'  niglit,'  were  born  Aion  and  Protogonos,  mortal  men  thus  named; 
and  Aion  discovered  how  to  nourish  oneself  from  trees.  Their 
offspring  were  called  Genos  and  Genea.  They  dwelt  in  Phoenicia. 
When  droughts  occurred,  they  lifted  their  hands  to  the  heavens 
towards  the  sun  (for  they  thought  that  it  was  the  only  lord  of 
heaven)  calling  it  Beelsamin,  which  in  Phoenician  means  '  lord  of 
heaven.' 

Of  the  race  [or,  according  to  the  Latin  version,  of  Genos  the 
son]  of  Aion  and  Protogonos  were  again  begotten  mortal  children, 
whoso  names  were  Phos,  Pur,  and  Phlox.  These  found  out  the 
method  of  generating  fire  by  rubbing  together  pieces  of  wood, 
and  taught  its  use.  They  begat  sons  who  surpassed  them  in 
size  and  excellence,  and  whose  names  were  given  to  the  mountains 
of  which  they  were  the  lords  ;  thus  Mount  Cassius  [in  Syria]  and 
Lebanon  and  Antilebanon  and  Brathu  took  their  names  from 
them. 

Of  these  was  begotten  [Sa]  menrrounios  or  Hupsouranios.  He 
dwelt  in  Tyre,  and  found  out  how  to  make  huts  of  reeds  and 
rushes  and  papyrus.  He  quarrelled  with  his  brother  Ousoos. 
The  latter  was  the  first  to  invent  a  covering  for  the  body  out  of 
the  skins  of  the  wild  beasts  he  was  able  to  catch.     .     .     .     He 


('UNITES    AND    SETHITES  91 

also,  having  taken  a  tree  and  lopped  off  its  boughs,  was  the  first 
who  dared  to  put  out  to  sea.  He  consecrated  two  pillars  to  fire 
and  wind  ;  and  he  worshipped  them  and  poured  out  to  them  the 
blood  of  the  wild  beasts  he  bad  taken.  When  these  men  were 
dead,  their  survivors  consecrated  staves  to  them  and  worshipped 
pillars  and  kept  feasts  in  their  honor  year  by  year. 

Long  afterwards,  Agreus  and  Halieus  were  born  of  the  race  of 
Eupsonranios.  They  were  the  originators  of  hunting  and  fishing, 
and  from  them  hunters  and  fishermen  are  named.  Of  these  were 
begotten  two  brothers,  the  discoverers  of  iron  and  its  working. 
One  of  these,  Chrusor,  practised  words,  spells,  and  divinations ; 
he  invented  the  fishing-hook,  bait  and  line,  and  the  raft ;  and 
he  was  the  first  to  use  sails  :  therefore  men  worshipped  him  after 
his  death  as  a  god.  Some  say  his  brothers  thought  of  making 
walls  of  bricks. 

Afterwards,  of  his  race,  two  youths  were  born,  Technites  and 
earthy  Autochthon.  They  devised  mixing  stubble  with  the  clay 
of  bricks  and  drying  them  in  the  sun  ;  and  they  also  invented 
roofing.  By  these  others  were  begotten,  one  of  whom  was  called 
Agros,  the  other  Agroueros  or  Agrotes.  They  devised  the  addi- 
tion of  courts,  enclosures,  and  cellars  to  houses.  From  thorn 
come  rustics  and  such  as  hunt  with  dogs,  called  wanderers  and 
Titans. 

From  them  also  sprang  Amunos  and  Magos,  who  taught  men 
to  construct  villages  and  tend  flocks.  Of  these  came  Misor  and 
Suduk,  that  is  'active'  and  'just;'  and  they  discovered  the  use 
of  salt.  From  Misor  sprang  Taautos,  who  invented  the  writing 
of  the  first  letters,  and  whom  the  Egyptians  called  Thoth.  From 
Suduk  descended  the  Dioscuri  or  Cabiri  or  Corybautcs  or  Samo- 
thracian  deities.  They  were  the  first  to  invent  a  ship.  From 
these  descended  others  who  discovered  medicinal  herbs  and  the 
cure  of  poisons,  and  spells." 

A  number  of  Semitic  words  occur  in  this  passage. 
Baau  and  Beelsamen,  Samemroumos,  Misor  and  Suduk 
are  at  once  recognized.  But  the  names  are  for  the  most 
part  Greek,  and  are  doubtless  translations  of  the  original 
Phoenician  words.  Proceeding  on  these  facts  Orelli,  who 
oilited  an  edition  of  Sanchoniathon  in  1826,  and  Lenor- 
mant  would  retranslate  Aion,  "lifetime,"  into  its  Semitic 


92  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

homophone  and  partial  synonym  chavvah,  "  life,"  i.e.  Eve ; 
Protogonos,  "  first-born,"  they  would  render  by  Adarn, 
"  man  ; "  while  in  Genos  they  see  the  Grecized  form  of 
Cain.  Thus  at  once  the  close  relationship  between  the 
story  as  told  by  Sanchoniathon  and  the  tradition  which 
was  current  in  Israel  becomes  apparent :  for  according  to 
Sanchoniathon's  account,  when  translated  back  into  the 
original  Semitic,  the  first  mortals  were  Adam  the  first 
and  Eve,  who  discovered  the  art  of  nourishing  oneself 
from  the  fruit  of  trees ;  of  this  couple  were  born  Cain 
and  Caina,  and  from  Cain  proceeded  a  race  which  be- 
came noted  for  its  contributions  to  the  arts  and  for  its 
introduction  of  new  occupations  among  men.  But  in 
spite  of  these  striking  results,  the  attempt  of  Orelli 
and  Lenormant  is  a  failure.  Philologically  it  is  wild, 
and  at  the  same  time  it  appears  to  be  based  on  a  mis- 
conception of  the  Phoenician  story.  The  most  that  sober 
scholarship  can  say  has  been  said  by  Dillmann  in  his 
remark  that  the  closest  resemblance  of  the  Cainite  nar- 
rative with  the  Phoenician  legend  lies  in  the  connect- 
ing of  the  stages  of  civilization  with  certain  names,  and 
that  it  is  especially  worthy  of  comparison  that  "  two 
brothers  appear  as  the  discoverers  of  iron  and  its  work- 
ing, and  one  of  them  practised  words,  spells,  and  divina- 
tion, with  which  compare  the  double  sense  of  char  ash 
in  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  "  (Genesis,6  S.  102). 

Persons  are  not  intended  by  the  Phoenician  narrator. 
In  his  story  the  proper  names  are  common  nouns.  This 
was  clear  to  his  fellow-countrymen,  and  was  not  ob- 
scured in  the  early  Greek  and  Latin  translations.  Two 
mortals,  Sanchoniathon  says,  were  brought  into  ex- 
istence, Duration-of-life  and  First-born  ;  of  whom  the 
former  discovered  the  nourishment  that  is  in  the  fruit  of 
trees.  From  this  couple  proceeded  Race  or  Family  and 
Stock,  and  from  P^ace  were  born  three  mortals,  Light, 


CAINITES    AND   SETHITES  93 

Fire,  and  Flame,  who  discovered  how  to  produce  fire  by 
friction.  From  these  came  stalwart  beings  who  were 
lords  of  the  mountains.  Of  them  in  turn  sprang  two 
brothers,  named  respectively  One-from-high-heaven  and 
OuSOOS  [a  name  of  which  the  meaning  is  unknown].  The 
brothers  were  hostile.  The  one  invented  huts  of  reeds 
and  dwelt  at  Tyre  :  the  other  was  a  hunter  in  a  primitive 
sort  of  way,  who  caught  animals  as  best  he  could,  used 
their  skin  for  clothing  and  their  blood  for  libations; 
who,  discerning  that  logs  float,  essayed  into  the  sea  on 
a  tree-trunk,  and  who  worshipped  the  elements.  Long 
afterwards,  of  the  race  of  the  hut-dweller,  Hunter  and 
Fisher  were  born,  who  introduced  hunting  and  fishing. 
Then  came  the  two  who  discovered  iron  and  its  working, 
of  whom  one  Chrusor  [the  meaning  of  which  name  is  un- 
known] introduced  fishing  implements,  devised  the  raft, 
employed  sails,  and  used  incantations.  Afterwards,  in 
his  line,  appeared  Artificer  and  Earthy-Native,  who 
made  bricks  of  clay  and  introduced  the  roofing  of  houses 
[commonly  with  earth].  Of  these  were  born  Field  and 
Rustic,  with  whom  began  husbandry,  the  addition  of 
courts,  enclosures,  and  cellars  to  houses,  and  hunting 
with  dogs.  From  them  sprang  Amnnos  [perhaps  mean- 
ing "defence"]  and  Magos  [meaning unknown],  who  in- 
troduced villages  and  the  tending  of  flocks.  From  these 
came  Rectitude  and  Justice,  who  found  out  the  use  of 
salt  [and  who  regulated  civil  life  (Dillmann)J.  Of  Recti- 
tude was  born  Taautos,  the  Egyptian  Thoth,  who  intro- 
duced the  use  of  letters  in  writing  ;  while  from  Justice 
sprang  the  Dioscuri  [the  protectors  of  ships  in  storms]. 
From  these  sprang  the  discoverers  of  medicinal  herbs. 

Sanchoniathon  rehearses  his  tale  in  the  form  of  a 
genealogy  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  he  never  intended  it 
as  an  actual  family  history.  The  links  consist  of  abstract 
conceptions,  occupations,  and  natural  objects  connected 


94  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

with  modes  of  life,  the  names  undisguised.  The  nouns 
mirror  the  new  and  salient  feature  of  the  age  under  re- 
view. The  story  is  a  sagacious  and  remarkably  success- 
ful attempt  to  exhibit  the  characteristics  of  the  successive 
stages  of  human  development,  beginning  in  primitive 
times  and  extending  to  the  date  when  the  description 
was  penned.  The  author  describes  the  several  ages  by 
indicating  the  novelty  that  marks  progress.  The  char- 
acteristics were : 

Of  the  1st  age.  Birth  of  man  and  mere  monotonous 
duration  of  life.     Food  consisted  of  fruits. 

Of  the  2d  age.     Lineage  or  family. 

Of  the  3d  age.  Fire,  as  produced  and  employed  by 
man. 

Of  the  4th  age.     The  mountain  chieftains. 

Of  the  5th  age.  Settled  life  over  against  roving  life. 
Huts  of  reeds ;  and  clothing  of  skin,  floating  on  logs, 
worship  of  the  elements. 

Of  the  Gth  age.     The  hunter  and  the  fisher. 

Of  the  7th  age.  The  ironworkers;  fishing  implements, 
raft  of  logs,  use  of  sails,  incantation. 

Of  the  8th  age.  The  artificer  and  the  native  one,  of 
earth,  who  make  bricks  of  clay  and  roof  houses. 

Of  the  9th  age.  The  field  and  the  rustic;  exhibited  in 
husbandry,  enlargement  of  houses  [for  storing  prod- 
uce], employment  of  dogs  in  hunting. 

Of  the  10th  age.     Towns  built  and  flocks  tended. 

Of  the  11th  age.  Rectitude  and  justice ;  seen  in  the  reg- 
ulation of  civil  life.     Salt  used. 

Of  the  12th  age.  Alphabet  introduced,  the  complete 
ship. 

Of  the  13th  age.     Medicine. 

The  scheme  is  admirably  worked  out.     The  floating 
log  is  gradually  developed  into  the  complete  ship,  the 


CAINITES    AND   SETHITE8  95 

lint  of  reeds  into  the  spacious,  roofed  house  of  bricks, 
the  rude  seizure  of  animals  into  hunting  with  dogs.1 

When  the  Phoenician  narrative  is  scanned,  it  loses 
greatly  in  resemblance  to  the  Hebrew  account.  But  in- 
dependently of  this  interpretation  of  the  Phoenician  story, 
the  theory  of  its  connection,  however  remote,  with  the 
Hebrew  tradition  is  unnecessary  and  for  the  following 
reasons  improbable:  1.  Though  the  Phoenician  tale  be 
pine  speculation,  yet  since  it  treats  of  a  theme  which  is 
incidentally  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew  account  of  the 
('.unites,  it  mnst  show  points  of  resemblance  to  the 
Hebrew  record.  Certain  facts  in  the  history  of  human 
progress  are  evident  to  the  thinking  man  and  must  find 
place  in  every  thoughtful  narrative  of  man's  advance 
in  civilization.  These  discernible  facts  form  points  of 
resemblance,  even  though  the  several  narratives  in  which 
they  occur  are  independent  of  each  other  in  origin. 
2.  The  Phoenician  story  is  local  in  its  details :  Phoe- 
nicia is  the  abode  of  men  when  they  are  still  naked 
and  without  tire  ;  the  race  begins  its  development  under 
the  shadow  of  Lebanon  and  Antilebanon  and  Cassius  ; 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Tyre  the  first  hut-builder  dwells; 
the  metal  discovered  and  worked  is  iron,  a  product  of 
tli"  Syrian  mountains;  the  sea  allures  the  venturesome, 
provokes  the  mind  to  invention,  and  opens  a  highway 
to  the  papyrus  of  the  neighboring  Nile.  The  scene 
of  the  Hebrew  narrative  is  the  far  east  ;  the  first  man 
dwelt  in  Eden,  near  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  rivers, 
and  Cain  journeyed  into  the  land  of  Nod  on  the  east  of 
Eden.  3.  The  names  in  the  Phoenician  story  are  com- 
mon nouns,  and  denote  abstract  ideas,  or  trades  and  occu- 

1  The  biblical  picture  is  loss  detailed.  1.  Man  ;  his  food  the  fruit  of  trees, 
and  God  the  object  of  worship.  2.  Sin  :;.  Clothing  of  akin.  4.  Tilling  Boil 
and  tending  flocks.  5.  The  community  or  town.  <*>.  Nomad  Bhepherds  with 
movable  tents,  musical  Instruments,  copper  and  iron  working. 


90  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

pations,  or  natural  objects  connected  with  modes  of  life. 
In  the  Hebrew  narrative  the  names  do  not  mark  advanc- 
ing civilization  nor  even  denote  trades,  unless  in  the 
case  of  the  sons  of  Lamech ;  and  the  list  contains  two 
examples  of  the  compound  proper  names  in  vogue  among 
the  Semites,  Mehujael  and  Methushael,  of  which  the 
latter  has  a  decided  Babylonian  cast.  4.  The  Phoenician 
tale  is  told  in  the  manner  of  oriental  philosophy,  putting- 
its  speculations  or  its  knowledge  of  the  development  of 
civilization  figuratively  in  the  form  of  a  genealogy  and 
treating  the  novel  feature  of  each  age  as  a  person  and  a 
progenitor  because  embodied  in  and  transmitted  by  suc- 
cessive generations  of  the  human  race.  The  Hebrew  nar- 
rative, on  the  other  hand,  has  the  characteristics  of  hu- 
man family  history,  concrete,  personal,  living. 

A  common  element,  indeed,  these  two  accounts  have. 
Each  is  based  on  the  belief  that  man  came  forth  from  the 
hands  of  the  Creator  with  capacity,  but  without  attain- 
ment. He  was  ushered  naked  into  the  world  and  for  a 
time  he  lived  in  it  naked,  without  knowledge  of  the 
resources  of  inanimate  nature  and  without  apprehension 
of  the  utility  of  animals ;  but  created  with  powers  of  dis- 
cernment and  ability  to  subdue  the  earth  and  all  things 
in  it  unto  himself. 


A  Babylonian  tradition  is  available  for  comparison 
with  the  account  of  the  Sethites  or  ten  patriarchs  which 
is  given  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Genesis.  In  the  second 
book  of  his  history,  Berosus  enumerates  the  ten  Jungs 


OAINITES   AND   SETHITE9  97 

<»f  the  Chaldeans  who  reigned  before  the  deluge.1     He 
says a that 

"  Tlio  first  king  was  Alorus  of  [the  city  of5]  Babylon,  a  Chal- 
dean. [He  gave  out  a  report  about  himself  that  God  had  ap- 
pointed  him  to  be  shepherd  of  the  people.3]  Ho  reigned  ton 
Bars.     [A  sar  is  thirty-six  bundled  years.3  ] 

And  afterwards  Alaparus  [his  son  '  reigned  three  sars3  G  ]. 

And  [after  him  3]  Amelon  [a  Chaldean  5],  who  was  of  [the  city 
of 3  5  ]  Pantibiblon  [reigned  thirteen  sars3  ]. 

Then  Ammenon  the  Chaldean  [of  Pantibiblon  reigned  twelve 
sars3  ']. 

Then  Megalarus  of  the  city  of  Pantibiblon,  and  he  reigned 
eighteen  sars. 

And  after  him  Daonus  the  shepherd  of  Pantibiblon  reigned  ten 
sars. 

Then  Eucdorachus  of  Pantibiblon  reigned  eighteen  sars. 

Then  Amemiisiuus,  a  Chaldean  of  Laranchae,  reigned  ;  and  he, 
the  eighth,  was  king  ten  sars. 

Next  Otiartes,  a  Chaldean  of  Laranchae,  reigned  ;  and  he  [the 
ninth  '  ]  was  king  eight  sars. 

Aud  [last  of  all 3  ],  upon  the  death  of  Otiartes,  his  son  Xisuthrus 
reigned  eighteen  sars.     In  his  time  the  great  deluge  occurred. 

Thus,  when  summed  up,  the  kings  are  ten  ;  and  the  sars  are 
one  hundred  and  twenty  [or  four  hundred  and  thirty-two  thousand 
years,  reaching  to  the  flood  '  ]." 

This  catalogue  resembles  the  Sethite  genealogy  re- 
corded in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Genesis  in  that  it  is  re- 
stricted to  antediluvians,  contains  the  names  of  ten  per- 
sons, and  terminates  with  the  hero  of  the  flood.  The 
difference  between  the  lists,  at  least  as  they  now  lie  be- 
fore us,  is  however  as  marked  as  the  agreement.  The 
corresponding  names  in  the  two  catalogues  bear  no  out- 

1  Syncellus  quoting  Alexander  Polyhistor. 

2  Syncellus  quoting  Apollodorus. 

3  Syncellus  quoting  Abydenus. 

1  Syncellus  quoting  Abydenus  concerning  the  deluge. 
6  Eusebins,  Armenian  Chronicle,  quoting  Alexander  Polyhistor. 
•  Eusebius,  Armenian  Chronicle,  quoting  Abydenus. 
7 


98  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

ward  resemblance  to  eacli  other *  and  the  years  ascribed 
to  the  corresponding  names  stand  in  no  arithmetic  ratio 
to  each  other  ;  the  Hebrew  register  is  silent  as  to  the 
rank  or  title  of  the  men  whose  genealogy  it  records,  while 
the  Babylonian  enumerates  kings  ;  the  one  is  a  lineage  in 
which  each  member  is  related  by  blood  to  both  his  pred- 
ecessor and  successor,  the  other  is  a  line  of  kings  of 
whom  the  father  is  not  always  followed  by  the  son,  but  a 
new  dynasty  occasionally  arises  ;  the  one  gives  a  geneal- 
ogy of  the  human  race  from  its  origin,  the  other  begins 
with  the  first  king  of  Babylon.  But  all  these  differences 
may  perhaps  lie  on  the  surface.  1.  The  Babylonian  list, 
as  it  now  exists,  contains  indeed  the  names  of  kings  only, 
but  this  may  be  an  error  which  grew  out  of  the  felt  need 

1  Internal  resemblance  may,  of  course,  exist  notwithstanding  external  un- 
likeness.  Before,  however,  the  meaning  of  the  names  in  the  two  lists  can  be 
successfully  compared,  the  original  Babylonian  form  of  those  which  Berosus 
gives  must  be  determined.  And  this  is  difficult.  But  the  difficulty  is  not  due 
to  contradictions  in  our  present  manuscripts.  The  names  have  been  trans- 
mitted by  them  with  substantial  unanimity,  except  in  the  case  of  the  third, 
fifth,  seventh,  and  ninth.  The  references  are  to  the  footnote  on  the  preceding 
page. 

1.  'AA(opo9.2'3  Alorus.6'8 

2.  'AAairapo?.2'3  Alaparns>6 

3.  'Afirj\<ov.'i  'Am'AAapos.9  Almelon.6* 

4.  'Afj.fi.evuiv.?'''  Ammeiion.5,8 

5.  MeyaAapos.5'3  Amegalarus.5'' 

6.  Aacoi-os.2  AaoJ?.3  Davonus.6,8 

7.  Eue&opaxos.2  EveHuipecrx"'!^  Edoranchus. 5  Edoreschus. fi 

8.  'A/x6(iii|(if6s.2  Amemphsinus. 6 

9.  'ApSaTi)?.1  'nTirc'pTr;?.2  Otiartes.6 
10.  Eio-ovOpos.1'2  SicrouUpos.3  2«ri0pos.4     Xisnthrus.r,,r' 

Variations  of  minor  importance,  frequently  alluded  to,  are  'AAao-Trapo?  and 
'A/u.<£ts  (Syncel.,  p.  18  A,  a  passage  full  of  errors)  as  second  and  eighth  kings ; 
MeyaAai'os  (Cod.  Paris.,  1711)  as  fifth  ;  Amen  pbsinus  as  the  eighth,  occurring 
in  both  places  where  the  name  is  found  in  the  text,  but  corrected  in  the  mar- 
gin to  Amemphsinus  ;  and  Scaliger's  readings  'AeScopea-xos''  and  often  2ei'crou0pos. 

Of  the  many  attempts  made  to  discover  the  original  Babylonian  form  of 
these  names  and  to  identify  them  with  the  corresponding  ones  in  the  Hebrew 
list,  that  of  Delitzsch,  meagre  as  its  results  are,  has  not  been  superseded 
(Paradies,  S.  149).  Perhaps  the  latest  essay  in  this  line  is  Hommel's  (PSBA  , 
xv.,  243  seq.). 


0AIN1TE8    AND   SETHITES  99 

to  bestow  some  title  on  these  men  commensurate  with 
their  renown.  If  not  kings,  they  were  famous.  The  cunei- 
form tablets  which  contain  an  account  of  the  deluge  are 
at  least  three  hundred  years  earlier  than  Berosus,  and  do 
not  describe  Xisuthrus  as  king ;  nor  does  the  biblical  ac- 
count so  describe  Noah.  2.  In  the  Babylonian  list  the 
descent  of  the  government  from  father  to  son  is  asserted 
in  two  instances  only,  namely,  from  the  first  king  to  the 
second  and  from  the  ninth  to  the  tenth  ;  and  the  exist- 
ence of  three  successive  dynasties,  namely  of  Babylon, 
of  Pantibiblon,  and  of  Laranchae,  seems  to  be  affirmed. 
But  the  Hebrew  asserts  kinship,  however  remote,  between 
the  successive  links.  Still  the  genealogy  which  is  re- 
corded by  the  Hebrew  writer  is  not  unlikely  just  such  a 
one  as  might  be  constructed  out  of  the  line  of  English 
monarchs  who  have  reigned  since  the  Norman  conquest, 
by  the  selection  of  ten  names  in  their  chronological  se- 
quence which  would  represent  the  different  dynasties  and 
at  the  same  time  would  exhibit  the  unbroken  descent 
from  the  Conqueror.  3.  Each  of  the  ten  patriarchs  is 
assigned  a  prolonged  life ;  each  of  the  ten  kings  has  a 
greatly  longer  reign.  The  contrast  is  twofold ;  between 
the  number  of  years  in  corresponding  cases,  and  between 
length  of  life  and  length  of  reign.  But  instead  of  this 
difference  indicating  non-identity  of  the  two  lines,  it  may 
be  found,  when  the  Semitic  tradition  is  fully  known,  to 
afford  a  simpler  explanation  than  that  usually  offered  for 
the  duration  of  life  which  is  ascribed  to  the  patriarchs. 
■i.  The  symmetry  of  the  numbers  in  the  Babylonian 
transmission  is  open  to  the  suspicion  of  being  artificial. 
The  number  of  kings  is  ten;  the  sum  of  their  united 
reigns  is  one  hundred  and  twenty  sar,  a  multiple  of  ten 
and  of  the  basal  number  of  the  Babylonian  duodeci- 
mal system.  There  are  three  reigns  of  ten  sar  each, 
three  of  eighteen  sar  each,  and  three  successive  reigns 


100  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

which  taken  together  make  ten  and  eighteen  sar.  Taking 
the  reigns  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur,  we  have  as 
their  duration  the  series  10,  18  +  10,  18,  10,  18,  10,  8, 
and  18. 

What  then  is  the  relation  of  these  lists  to  each  other  ? 
It  is  difficult  to  say.  The  wiser  course  is  to  suspend  judg- 
ment for  the  present  and  allow  the  question  to  remain 
open.  The  facts  are  capable  of  two  interpretations  :  either 
the  two  catalogues  are  fundamentally  different,  having 
been  constructed  for  different  purposes,  yet  as  they  deal 
with  prominent  persons  belonging  to  the  same  historic 
age  and  to  the  same  country,  cross  each  other  at  various 
points,  and  culminate  in  the  same  individual ;  or  else — and 
this  is  the  more  probable  theory — when  the  accretions 
and  transformations  of  centuries  are  removed,  the  two 
catalogues  will  be  found  to  represent  the  same  tradition. 


XI 

THE  SONS  OF  GOD 

The  intermarriage  of  the  sous  of  God  with  the  daugh- 
ters of  man  is  related  iu  the  sixth  chapter  of  Geuesis. 
No  parallel  to  this  accouut  has  beeu  discovered,  Inves- 
tigation is  accordingly  shut  up  to  the  question  of  the  iu- 
terpietation  of  the  biblieal  narrative. 

At  least  two  conceptions  of  the  phrase  "sons  of  God" 
in  this  passage  are  known  to  have  existed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  and  a  third  co-existed  with  them 
in  the  early  Christian  centuries.  1.  The  sons  of  God 
were  sons  of  the  mighty  of  the  earth  who  married  with 
women  of  the  lower  classes.  This  view  is  represented  by 
the  Samaritan  version,  by  the  Greek  translation  of  Sym- 
machus,  and  by  the  targums  of  Onkclos  and  Jonathan. 
{&)  The  sons  of  God  were  angels  who,  leaving  or  hav- 
ing left  their  first  estate,  took  wives  from  among 
the  children  of  men.  This  view  is  represented  by  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  by  Philo  and  Josephus,  and  by  the 
most  aneient  of  the  fathers,  such  as  Justin  Martyr,  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian.  3.  The  sons  of  God 
were  the  Sethites.  They  were  attracted  by  the  beauty 
of  women  who  did  not  belong  to  the  godly  line,  married 
with  them  and  became  secularized.  This  is  the  view  of 
early  churchmen  like  Julius  Africanus,  Chrysostom  and 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Augustine,  and  Jerome. 

The  first  interpretation  has  been  generally  abandoned 
as  unwarranted.  The  second  has  many  advocates,  num- 
bering among  them  the  great  exegetes  Franz  Delitzsch 
and  August  Dillmann.     Dillniann  takes  a  low  view.     He 


102  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

finds  in  the  narrative  a  reminder  of  heathen  mythology ; 
and  he  holds  that  the  account  has  been  drawn  from  an- 
cient legends  of  the  giants,  beings  half  god  and  half 
man.  Delitzsch,  on  the  other  hand,  like  Justin  Martyr  of 
old  and  Kurtz  among  modern  scholars,  entertains  a  high 
view  of  the  passage.  His  argument  is  substantially  as 
follows :  1.  Everywhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
phrase  "  sons  of  God  "  means  angels  and  must  have  the 
same  meaning  here.  The  name  refers  to  the  nature  of 
angels,  not  to  their  office.  The  official  title  is  maVach, 
messenger.  They  are  sons  of  God  by  nature,  whether 
they  are  good  or  evil.  2.  The  sons  of  God  are  con- 
trasted with  the  daughters  of  man,  the  divine  is  con- 
trasted with  the  human  :  for  the  expression  "  daughters 
of  man  "  is  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  v.  1,  where 
man  means  mankind  in  general,  and  not  that  portion 
of  the  race  which  had  become  estranged  from  God. 
3.  The  phrase  "  to  take  a  wife  "  means  entrance  into 
permanent  married  relation.  The  account  does  not 
speak  of  single  acts  of  intercourse,  but  of  permanent  and, 
so  far  as  the  angels  are  concerned,  unnatural  relation 
with  women.  It  must,  therefore,  be  assumed  that  the 
angels  assumed  human  bodies  and  not  that  they  mani- 
fested themselves  transiently  in  human  form.1  The  case 
is  parallel  to  later  instances  of  possession  by  evil  spir- 
its. Demons,  having  taken  possession  of  the  bodies  of 
[wicked]  men  and  using  them  as  instruments,  married 
the  daughters  of  men.  "  In  this,"  he  adds,  "  Ave  perhaps 
go  beyond  the  narrator,  who  here  reduces  to  the  kernel 
of  truth  the  obscene  stories  which  heathen  mythology  de- 
lights to  elaborately  embellish." 

In  confirmation  of  his  argument  Delitzsch  appeals  to 
Jude  6  :  "  Angels  which  kept  not  their  own  principality, 

1  On  the  basis  of  Gen.  vi.  Kurtz  founds  the  doctrine  that  angels  are  not 
pure  spirits  and  incorporeal,  but  are  possessed  of  bodies. 


THE   SONS   OF   GOD  103 

but  left  their  proper  habitation,  lie  hath  kept  in  everlast- 
ing bonds  under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day."  But  1.  The  very  point  at  issue  is  whether  Jude  is 
referring  to  the  sixth  chapter  of  Genesis  or  not.1  The 
exist' 'nee  of  fallen  angels  was  known,  even  if  their  fall  is 
not  recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Genesis.  Satan  was 
a  fallen  being  and  an  outcast  from  heaven  while  man  was 
yet  in  Eden.  His  angels  also,  for  whom  together  with 
him  the  eternal  fire  had  been  prepared,  fell  from  their 
first  estate  of  holiness  (Matt.  xxv.  41 ;  Rev.  xii.  9).  Judo 
may  have  these  events  in  mind.  Again  in  Is.  xxiv.  21-23, 
on  Delitzsch's  own  interpretation,  a  punishment  of  angelic 
hosts  and  earthly  princes  is  described  which  bears  close 
resemblance  to  the  passage  in  Jude  ;  and  Cheyne  under- 
stands that  Jude  and  Peter  and  John  (Rev.  xx.  2-3)  and 
the  author  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  in  another  place  (xviii. 
13-1G)  refer  to  this  passage.  It  is  begging  the  question, 
therefore,  and  precarious  to  assert  that  Jude  attributes 
the  fall  of  angels  to  their  intermarriage  with  mankind. 
And  "2.  While  Delitzsch  regards  the  narrative  in  Genesis 
as  history,  he  fails  to  explain  how  angels  by  taking  pos- 
session of  the  bodies  of  men  could,  as  indwelling  spirits, 
experience  the  mystery  of  human  affection  or  gratify 
a  carnal  appetite.  It  would  be  the  human  instrument, 
not  the  indwelling  controlling  demon,  that  would  feel. 
Kurtz  is  right.  If  angels  entered  into  marriage  relation 
with  women,  they  are  corporeal  beings  (History  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  i.,  p.  100  seq.). 

The  chief  objections  to  the  theory  which  regards  the 
sons  of  God  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Genesis  as  angels  aro 
two.  1.  A  very  early  interpretation  of  the  passage, 
perhaps  the  most  ancient  known,  that  of  the  Samaritan 
version,  explained   the  sons  of  God  as  human  beings. 

1  The  word  "  these"  in  v.  7  may  refer  either  to  the  angels  of  v.  6  or  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Sodom. 


104  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

This  is  strange  if  the  title  was  given  by  the  Israelites  to 
angels  exclusively.  The  view  that  angels  are  meant 
seems  to  be  a  later  growth  ;  it  was,  at  all  e vents,  the 
teaching  of  a  special  school  among  the  Jews  of  the  first 
century,  and  not  of  the  Avhole  or  even  most  influential 
part  of  the  Jewish  church  of  that  day.  2.  The  second 
objection  to  the  theory  in  question  is  that  it  contradicts 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  angels.  No  biblical  writer  any- 
where else  countenances  the  idea  that  angels  could  or 
would  enter  into  married  relation  with  mankind.  The 
uniform  representation  of  Scripture  elsewhere  is  that  the 
passions  of  demons,  irrespective  of  the  form  of  wicked- 
ness into  which  they  may  drive  the  possessed,  and  the 
emotions  of  unfallen  angels  arc  without  exception  spir- 
itual, not  carnal.  It  is  doctrine  novel  to  Scripture  that 
woman's  beauty  could  arouse  animal  love  in  angel  or 
demon. 

The  third  theory,  namely,  that  the  sons  of  God  were 
the  godly  race  of  Seth,  is  satisfactory.  For  1.  Accord- 
ing to  a  very  early  interpretation,  the  most  ancient 
one  perhaps  that  is  attested,  men  are  meant.  2.  Judged 
from  the  standpoint  of  biblical  angelology,  men  are 
meant.  3.  The  title  "  sons  of  God  "  is  not  restricted 
in  the  Scriptures  to  angels.  In  biblical  language  the 
worshippers  of  a  god  are  the  sons  or,  as  the  word  is 
frequently  rendered,  children  of  that  god.  If  the  whole 
nation  is  given  to  his  worship,  they  are  called  the 
people  of  that  god.  The  Israelites  were  the  "  sons  of 
the  living  God"  (Hos.  i.  10),  the  "sons  of  Jehovah" 
(Deut.  xiv.  1 ;  xxxii.  19 ;  Is.  xliii.  G ;  xlv.  11),  the  "people 
of  God"  (with  article,  Judg.  xx.  2).  Israel  was  "his 
son"  (Hos.  xi.  1  ;  Ex.  iv.  22),  Ephraim  his  "dear  son" 
(Jer.  xxxi.  20).  The  godly  are  "  the  generation  of  his  chil- 
dren "  (Ps.  lxxiii.  15),  while  those  who  have  dealt  corruptly 
are  "  not  his  children  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  4,  5).    The  Moabites 


THE   SONS   OF   GOD  105 

wore  known  as  the  people  of  the  god  Chemosh  and  as  his 
sons  and  daughters  (Num.  xxi.  20  ;  Jer.  xlviii.  46).  Under 
circumstances  closely  resembling  those  mentioned  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Genesis,  when  Judah  contracted  heathen 
marriages,  he  was  said  to  have  married  "the  daughter  of 
a  strange  god  "  (Mai.  ii.  11).  Even  judges,  because  en- 
trusted with  the  administration  of  divine  law,  are  called 
"  g<  ids,  the  sons  of  the  Most  High  "  (Ps.  lxxxii.  0).  Sons  of 
God  was  the  proper  title  to  apply  to  his  worshippers  among 
the  antediluvians.  4.  The  title  "  sons  of  God  " — a  desig- 
nation broad  enough  to  include  all  godly  men — is  appro- 
priate to  the  Sethites,  who  seem  to  be  prominently  before 
the  mind  of  the  writer  ;  for  they  were  the  worshippers  of 
God.  Despite  the  corruption  into  which  they  finally 
sank,  they  were  distinguished  as  a  godly  race.  The  line 
of  Seth  began  in  a  family  which  acknowledged  the  true 
God  and  recognized  his  goodness  (iv.  25).  In  that  line, 
in  the  next  generation,  God  was  worshipped  in  his  char- 
acter as  Jehovah  (iv.  26  and  cp.  v.  29).  In  that  line  was 
the  Lamech  who  cherished  a  hope  of  redemption  from 
the  curse.  In  that  line  were  Enoch  and  Noah,  both  of 
whom  were  conspicuous  for  their  piety  ;  through  the  one 
God  gave  to  the  antediluvian  world  striking  evidence  of 
future  life  with  God,  and  interposed  to  save  the  family 
of  the  other  from  the  universal  destruction.  By  right, 
therefore,  the  Sethites  might  be  called  the  children 
or  sons  of  God.  5.  The  use  of  the  term  "  man  "  finds 
suitable  explanation.  It  is  not  contrasted  with  God, 
but  with  the  sons  of  God  as  a  class,  and  means  other 
men  generally,  as  in  Jer.  xxxii.  20  and  Is.  xliii.  4,  where 
in  contrast  with  Israel  it  means  men  generally,  people  who 
are  not  of  the  chosen  nation.  God,  it  is  said,  did  "  set 
signs  and  wonders  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  even  unto  this 
day,  both  in  Israel  and  among  [other]  men."  After  the 
same  manner  Gen.  vi.  1-2  may  be  read  :  When  man  in 


106  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

general  began  to  multiply  on  the  face  of  the  ground  and 
daughters  were  born  unto  them,  the  sons  of  God  saw  the 
daughters  of  men  generally  that  they  were  fair  ;  and  they 
married  whomsoever  they  chose.  6.  These  unworthy 
alliances  are  described  in  v.  3  as  being  the  sin  of  man, 
not  of  angels  ;  and  the  offspring  of  the  union  are  men, 
not  demigods,  v.  4  (see  below).  A  period  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  years  is  granted  to  man,  not  to  angels,  for 
repentance  ;  and  the  flood  destroys  sinful  man,  not  fallen 
angels.  7.  The  place  occupied  by  this  account  in  the 
general  narrative  of  Genesis  suggests  that  the  narrator 
meant  Sethites  by  the  term  "  sons  of  God."  The  writer 
gave  a  history  of  the  fall  of  man  ;  he  then  recounted  the 
progress  of  evil,  the  downward  course  of  sin,  the  origin 
of  two  races  or  classes  of  people,  their  separate  develop- 
ment and  diverse  moral  tendencies  ;  and  finally  he  de- 
scribes the  intermarriage  of  the  two  peoples  in  order  to 
show  how  the  godly  were  secularized  and  corrupted,  and 
to  explain  why  there  were  not  righteous  men  enough  to 
avert  the  deluge  (cp.  Gen.  xviii.  20-33). 

On  broad  scriptural  grounds,  therefore,  and  from  the 
details  of  the  account  and  the  place  occupied  by  it  in  the 
narrative,  we  conclude  that  by  the  sons  of  God  the  pious 
race  of  the  Sethites  is  meant. 

The  offspring  of  the  mixed  marriages  were  nephilim. 
This  word  is  rendered  gibbaraya'  by  Onkelos,  yiyavre?  by 
LXX,  iirnr'nTTOvres  by  Aquila,  (Blcuol  by  Symmachus. 
The  etymology  is  doubtful.  Many  derivations  have 
been  proposed.  It  has  been  traced,  for  example,  to  the 
Assyrian  pfflu,  strong,  mighty ;  and  to  the  Hebrew 
naphal  in  the  sense  (1)  of  fallen,  sinful  beings,  or  (2)  of 
beings  characterized  by  falling  upon  others,  violent,  or 
(3)  bastards,  analogous  to  nephel,  abortion,  miscarriage. 

The  word  occurs  in  but  one  other  passage,  namely  in 
the  report  of  the  ten  faint-hearted  spies  concerning  the 


THE  SONS   OF  OOI)  107 

obstacles  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  They  had  seen  the 
Nephiliin,  i.e.,  Anakim,  who  were  descended  from  the 
Nephilim  ;  and  in  comparison  with  them  the  Israelitish 
explorers  felt  themselves  grasshoppers  (Num.  xiii.  33). 
But  these  people  were  not  giants  in  the  sense  usually 
associated  with  that  term;  they  were  not  beings  of  super- 
human size  and  extraordinary  power;  they  were  not  even 
exceptional;  for  it  is  expressly  stated  that  there  were 
other  nations  in  Canaan  "  great  and  tall  like  the  Ana- 
kim "  (Dent.  ii.  10,  20),  and  the  spies  reported  that  all 
the  people  of  the  land  were  men  of  stature  (Num.  xiii. 
32).  The  Anakim  were  large,  stalwart  men,  who  had  dis- 
tinguished themselves  in  war  and  whose  invincibility  had 
become  proverbial  (Dent.  ix.  2).  And  the  question  remains 
unanswered  whether  the  name  Nephilim  denotes  largeness 
of  frame  or  fierceness  of  disposition  or  lowness  of  birth. 

In  regard  to  the  antediluvian  Nephilim,  a  description 
of  them  is  given  in  the  verse  in  which  they  are  named. 
They  are  not  called  men  of  stature.  They  are  de- 
scribed as  "  mighty  "  men.  The  word  employed  is  gib- 
bur,  which  signifies  a  valiant  man,  or  a  warrior,  or  a 
hero.  The  mighty  men  whom  David  had  are  called  gib- 
bnnin  (1  Chr.  xi.  10,  et  seq.),  but  they  were  not  giants. 
Of  course  the  word  might  find  fitting  application  to  a  gi- 
ant, but  not  in  reference  to  his  stature.  The  essential 
idea  of  the  word  is  strength,  not  size.  The  Nephilim  are 
further  described  as  "  the  men  of  name  "  whose  deeds  of 
valor  or  violence  got  them  "  renown  "  (cp.  Num.  xvi.  2, 
1  Chr.  v.  24,  and  the  deeds  of  David's  mighty  men,  1 
Chr.  xi.  22-24).  Bodily  strength  and  the  disposition  to 
exercise  it  in  acts  of  violence  would  naturally  appear  in 
the  offspring  of  the  intermingling  peoples ;  for  it  is  a 
universally  recognized  fact  that  the  engrafting  of  one 
race  upon  another  not  too  different  produces  a  more  vig- 
orous type  of  men,  and  that  marriage  between  the  godly 


108  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

and  the  worldly  results  in  a  loss  of  spirituality  and  a  low- 
ering of  the  moral  tone. 

Only  one  other  matter  remains  to  be  considered. 
Those  who  interpret  the  sons  of  God  as  angels  (errone- 
ously, we  think)  commonly  discern  a  counterpart  to  the 
intermarriage  of  the  sons  of  God  with  the  daughters 
of  men  in  certain  tales  of  Grecian  mythology.  If  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  title  "  sons  of  God  "  which  has  been 
defended  in  the  foregoing  discussion  be  valid,  there  is 
no  ground  for  such  comparisons.  But  it  may  be  well  to 
waive  the  question  of  exegesis  and  to  consider  the  alleged 
parallelism  solely  in  the  light  of  archaeology. 

Josephus,  although  he  is  of  the  number  of  those  who 
identify  the  sons  of  God  with  the  angels,  sees  nothing 
superhuman  in  their  offspring.  The  latter  were  "  despis- 
ers  of  all  that  was  good,  on  account  of  the  confidence  they 
had  in  their  own  strength."  And  he  adds  :  "  The  tradi- 
tion is  that  these  men  did  what  resembled  the  acts  of 
those  whom  the  Grecians  call  giants."  Have  we  then 
after  all,  as  some  have  imagined,  arrived  at  the  myth  of 
the  giants  ?  Although  Josephus,  who  is  writing  for 
Greek  readers,  points  out  only  a  resemblance  between 
the  actions,  although  the  language  of  the  Hebrew  narrator 
does  not  imply  beings  of  gigantic  size,  is  the  Hebrew 
record  nevertheless  nothing  but  a  popular  myth  deprived 
of  repugnant  features  and  adjusted  to  the  religion  of  Is- 
rael ?  Is  the  narrative  of  the  impious  race  and  of  their 
overthrow  by  the  deluge  at  bottom  the  Greek  story  of  the 
gigantic  offspring  of  heaven  and  earth  revolting  against 
the  gods  and  cast  into  the  depths  of  the  sea  in  punish- 
ment ?  No  ;  for  a  part  of  the  Hebrew  narrative,  it  may 
be  said  at  once,  is  not  a  myth  ;  the  deluge  is  an  histori- 
cal fact.  The  sequel  being  history— and  the  narrative  of 
the  flood  is  evidently  regarded  as  the  sequel  by  the 
author  of  Genesis — the  former  narrative  is  not  likely  to 


THE   SONS   OF  GOD  109 

have  been  a  myth  trimmed  and  adjusted  to  fit  into  the 
historical  event.  And  as  to  the  former  part,  the  general 
Babylonian  tradition,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  chapter  on 
the  tower  of  Babel,  did  not  look  upon  the  persons  de- 
stroyed by  the  flood  as  gigantic  offspring  of  heaven  and 
earth.  A  broader  answer  is  given  by  Lenormant.  "This 
myth,"  sa}*s  Lenormant,  speaking  of  the  Greek  story  of 
the  battle  of  the  giants,  "  is  exclusively  naturalistic. 
These  earth-born  giants  remain  absolutely  foreign  to  hu- 
manity, and  continue  to  be  solely  the  representatives  of 
the  forces  of  nature,  no  serious  mythology  ever  having 
entertained  the  idea  of  associating  the  Gigantomachy  with 
the  cycle  of  traditions  at  the  beginnings  of  human  his- 
tory" (Origiues,  p.  359  scq.,  Eng.  Tr.,  360). 

Lenormant  is  more  inclined  to  see  the  counterpart  of 
the  Hebrew  narrative  in  the  Greek  stories  of  the  heroes, 
"  demigods  born  of  the  love  of  a  god  for  a  mortal  woman 
or  of  a  goddess  for  a  mortal  man."  This  is  going  far 
afield.  The  tales  of  the  heroes  are  Greek,  not  Semitic. 
They  do  not  accord  with  the  spirit  of  early  Babylonian 
mythology  as  known  from  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  at 
present  accessible  and  from  accredited  Babylonian  his- 
torians who  wrote  their  country's  history  in  Greek.  In 
Babylonian  mythology,  deities  had  spouses ;  but  these 
consorts  were  divine  and  their  offspring  were  gods. 
Ishtar  endeavored  to  fascinate  men,  but  human  progeny 
did  not  result.  Native  Babylonian  mythology  has  thus 
far  failed  to  tell  of  a  god  entering  into  amorous  union 
with  a  mortal  woman  and  begetting  "  a  mighty  man,  a 
man  of  renown  "  who  was  on  earth  in  the  days  of  old.  ' 
The  present  outlook  is  not  favorable  to  the  discovery  of 
any  such  tale,  much  less  of  a  host  of  such  stories. 

1  The  remarks  of  Professor  Sayce  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  Sargon  of  Agade 
have  not  been  overlooked,  but  tluv  axe  fiction  of  the  Englishman's  own  devis- 
ing (Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  27).  The  custom  alluded  to  by  Herodotus  (i., 
1>1  and  L82)  was,  of  course,  a  priestly  arrangement. 


XII 

THE  DELUGE 

In  the  autumn  of  1872  Mr.  George  Smith,  while  at 
work  in  the  British  Museum  examining  the  clay  tablets 
Avhich  had  been  exhumed  at  Nineveh,  read,  on  a  large 
fragment  which  he  picked  up,  the  words  :  "  The  moun- 
tain of  Nizir  stopped  the  ship.  I  sent  forth  a  dove  and 
it  left.  The  dove  went  and  turned,  and  a  resting-place  it 
did  not  find,  and  it  returned."  Perceiving  at  once  the 
resemblance  to  the  story  of  Noah,  he  began  a  search  to 
find  the  remainder  of  the  tale — a  search  which  he  prose- 
cuted unweariedly  for  two  years,  not  only  among  the 
thousands  of  broken  tablets  in  the  Museum,  but  also, 
through  the  liberality,  first,  of  the  proprietors  of  the 
■  Daily  Telegraph,  then  of  the  trustees  of  the  Museum,  on 
the  site  of  ancient  Nineveh  itself.  Success  crowned  his 
efforts.  Two  years  after  the  discovery  of  the  first  frag- 
ment he  had  secured  portions  of  three  distinct  copies  of 
the  tale,  had  established  an  almost  complete  text,  and 
had  produced  a  fair  translation.  Since  his  lamented 
death  several  additional  fragments  have  happily  come  to 
light  to  add  to  the  completeness  of  the  text  and  to  assist 
in  its  interpretation. 

The  story,  as  the  tablet  on  which  it  is  recorded  itself 
states,  forms  the  eleventh  episode  of  a  national  epic  in 
celebration  of  the  deeds  of  Izdubar,  or,  as  there  is  some 
reason  to  pronounce  the  name,  Gilgamesh,  king  of  Erech. 
The  great  hero  of  the  tale,  having  been  smitten  with  a 
torturing  disease  on  account  of  his  insolence  toward  the 


THE  DELUGE  111 

gods,  resolved  to  seek  his  ancestor,  Tsitnapishtim,  who 
had  been  translated  to  the  gods,  was  then  dwelling  "  at 
the  month  of  the  rivers,"  and  had  knowledge  of  life  and 
death.  After  a  long  and  toilsome  journey  he  finally 
reached  the  desired  locality,  and  Tsitnapishtim  stood 
before  him — a  man  of  a  generation  long  past,  yet  with 
the  freshness  and  vigor  of  youth.  Astonished  Izdubar 
exclaimed  :  "  How  earnest  thou,  Tsitnapishtim,  to  see 
life  among  the  gods  ?  " 

"I  will  open  to  you,  Izdubar,"  replied  Tsitnapishtim,  "the  con- 
cealed story,  and  also  the  oracle  of  the  gods  [with  reference  to  the 
cure  of  your  disease]  will  I  declare.  You  know  the  city  of  Surip- 
pak.  which  stands  on  the  Euphrates.  That  city  was  old  when  the 
gods  who  dwelt  therein  were  moved  at  heart  to  bring  about  a  flood- 
storm.  God  Ann  was  there  among  others,  and  Bel  and  Ninib. 
The  god  Ea,  however,  deliberated  with  them,  and  he  revealed  unto 
me  their  purpose  [by  means  of  a  dream  (1.  177)  ].  '  Man  of  Surip- 
pak,  son  of  Ubaratutu,'  said  he,  'tear  down  the  house,  build  a 
ship,  despise  property,  and  save  life.  Bring  into  the  ship  seed  of 
life  of  every  kind.'  I  paid  attention  and  said  to  god  Ea :  '  O  my 
lord,  what  thou  hast  commanded  I  will  respect  by  cany  in  g  out.' 

On  the  morrow  [preparations  were  begun].  On  the  fifth  day  I 
laid  the  framework — 140  cubits  its  height,  14.0  cubits  its  extent 
above.  I  divided  its  interior,  I  provided  a  rudder.  Over  the  out- 
side I  poured  three  measures  [sars]  of  bitumen  and  likewise  over 
the  inside.  When  the  ship  was  completed  I  filled  it  with  all  that 
I  possessed — with  silver,  gold,  and  seed  of  life  of  every  kind.  I 
took  on  board  all  my  men-servants  and  maid-servants,  the  cattle 
and  the  beast  of  the  field,  and  the  artisans. 

The  sun-god  set  a  time.  'When  the  sender  of  violent  rain 
causes  a  heavy  rain  to  pour  down  in  the  evening,  enter  into  the 
ship  and  shut  the  door.'  The  set  time  came.  He  who  sends  vio- 
lent rain  caused  a  heavy  rain  to  fall  in  the  evening.  The  dawn- 
ing of  the  day  I  feared,  I  trembled  to  behold  the  morning.  I 
entered  the  ship,  closed  the  door  to  shut  it  in,  and  committed  the 
immense  structure  with  its  cargo  to  Puzur-Bel,  the  pilot. 

As  soon  as  the  dawn  appeared,  a  dark  cloud  ascended  on  the 
horizon.      In  the  midst  of  it  the  storm-god  rolled  the  thunder. 


112  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

The  gods  Nebo  and  Marduk  marched  on  before,  went  as  guides 
over  hill  and  dale ;  the  mighty  pest-god  tore  loose  the  ship,  the 
god  Ninib  caused  the  streams  to  overflow  their  banks.  The  Anun- 
naki,  spirits  of  the  subterranean  regions,  lifted  torches  and  made 
the  land  flicker  by  the  light.  The  storm-god  raised  billows  which 
reached  to  heaven.  All  light  was  turned  to  darkness.  Man  saw 
not  his  fellow,  human  beings  were  not  discerned  by  those  in 
heaven. 

The  gods  also  were  terrified  at  the  flood-storm,  sought  refuge, 
ascended  to  heaven,  and  crouched  at  the  wall  like  a  dog  in  his 
lair.  Then  the  goddess  Ishtar,  like  a  woman  in  travail,  cried  out 
— she  of  beautiful  voice  called  :  '  Mankind  which  was  is  become 
mud,  the  very  evil  which  I  foretold  in  the  presence  of  the  gods 
and  just  as  I  foretold  it  to  them.  A  storm  for  the  annihilation  of 
my  people  I  declared  it  would  be.  I  brought  forth  men,  but  to  what 
purpose  ?  Like  fry  of  fish  they  fill  the  sea.'  The  gods  over  the 
spirits  of  the  subterranean  regions  wept  with  her,  sitting  bowed 
in  tears,  their  lips  covered. 

Six  days  and  six  nights  '  wind,  flood-storm,  and  rain  prevailed  ; 
on  the  seventh  day  the  rain  abated  ;  the  flood,  the  storm  which 
had  writhed  like  a  woman  in  travail,  rested;  the  sea  withdrew  to 
its  bed,  and  the  violent  wind  and  the  flood-storm  ceased. 

I  looked  on  the  sea,  at  the  same  time  shouting  ;  but  all  men 
were  become  mud.  I  opened  a  window  ;  and,  as  the  light  fell 
upon  my  face,  I  shrank  back  and  sat  down  weeping ;  over  my 
cheeks  the  tears  coursed.  I  had  looked  on  every  side — a  wide  ex- 
panse, sea. 

A  bit  of  land,  however,  rose  to  the  height  of  twelve  measures. 
To  the  country  of  Nitsir  the  ship  took  its  course.  A  mountain  of 
that  land  stranded  the  vessel  and  kept  it  from  moving  farther.  On 
the  first  day  and  on  the  second  day  Mount  Nitsir  held  the  ship, 
on  the  third  day  and  on  the  fourth  day  likewise,  on  the  fifth  and 
sixth  days  likewise.  When  the  seventh  day  came  I  released  a 
dove.  The  dove  flew  hither  and  thither;  there  was  no  resting- 
place,  so  it  returned.  Next  I  sent  forth  a  swallow.  The  swallow 
also  flow  hither  and  thither  and,  as  there  was  no  resting  place,  re- 

1  Mentioning  the  nights  as  well  as  the  days,  as  does  the  Hehrew  narrative  at 
the  same  point.  For  text  see  Expositor,  September,  1SS8,  pp.  23f>-37  ;  Haupt, 
Beibr'age,  vol.  i.,  133";  Jensen,  Kosmologie,  S.  430.  Delitzsch,  however,  reads 
"six  days  and  seven  nights."  His  text  thus  contains  a  formula  often  found 
elsewhere,  e.g.,  1.  188. 


THE   DELUGE  113 

turned.  Then  I  sent  forth  a  raven.  The  raven  flew  away  and, 
when  it  saw  that  the  waters  had  fallen,  it  approached,  alighting 
but  not  returning.1 

I  then  sent  forth  [all  the  animals]  to  the  four  winds.  I  poured 
out  a  libation,  I  made  an  ottering  on  the  summit  of  the  mountain. 
I  set  vessels  by  sevens,  and  underneath  them  spread  sweet  cane, 
cedar,  and  herbs.  The  gods  smelled  the  savor  and  like  flies  gath- 
ered abont  the  offerer. 

When  the  goddess  Ishtar  arrived,  sho  raised  aloft  the  great  orna- 
ment which  the  god  of  the  sky  had  made  at  her  request.  '  By 
the  ornament  of  my  neck,  never  will  I  forget  ;  I  will  think  of 
these  days  and  to  eternity  not  forget  them.  Let  all  the  gods  come 
to  the  offering  except  Bel,  for  he  inconsiderately  caused  the  de- 
luge and  consigned  my  people  to  the  judgment.'  But  Bel  came 
also  ;  and,  when  he  saw  the  ship,  was  filled  with  wrath  against  the 
gods  of  the  heavenly  spirits.  'What  soul  has  escaped?'  he 
cried;  'not  a  man  shall  survive  the  judgment.'  Then  god  Ninib 
opened  his  mouth  and  spake  to  the  valorous  Bel  :  '  Who  else  than 
god  Ea  has  done  this  thing?  Ea  knows  surely  every  exorcism.' 
Ea  also  opened  his  mouth  and  said  to  the  valorous  Bel  :  '  Thou, 
valorous  chieftain  of  the  gods,  so  utterly  without  reflection  hast 
thou  acted  and  caused  the  flood.  On  the  sinner  lay  his  sin,  on 
the  evil-doer  his  evil  deeds.  Desist  [from  wrath]  that  he  be  not 
cutoff;  be  gracious  also.  Instead  of  causing  a  flood-storm  Bend 
the  lion  and  the  hyena,  famine  and  pestilence,  and  let  them  dimin- 
ish men.  And  as  for  me,  I  did  not  reveal  the  purpose  of  the 
great  gods ;  I  sent  Atrachasis  a  dream  and  he  perceived  the  pur- 
pose of  the  gods.' 

Then  Bel  became  reasonable,  went  up  into  the  ship,  grasped 
my  hand  and  led  me  up.  He  led  up  my  wife  also  and  made  her 
kneel  at  my  side.  Then  turning  to  ns  he  placed  himself  between 
us  and  blessed  us,  Baying  :  '  Heretofore  Tsitnapishtim  was  a  [mere] 
man  ;  now  let  him  and  his  wife  be  exalted  to  equality  with  the 
gods,  and  let  him  dwell  afar  off  at  the  mouth  of  the  rivers.' 
Thereupon  he  took  me  away  and  placed  me  afar  off  at  the  mouth  of 
the  rivers."  3 

1  Or,  the  raven  flew  away  and  saw  the  abatement  of  the  waters  ;  [thereupon] 
he  eats,  alights  carefully,  but  does  not  return. 

•  Such  is  essentially  the  cuneiform  story.     As  here  reproduced,  it  is  slightly 
abridged;  chiefly,  however,   by  the  omission  of  mutilated  lines  and  of  sen- 
tences whose  translation  is  still  uncertain. 
8 


114  GENESIS    AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

Berosus  also  wrote  an  account  of  a  flood.  According 
to  the  extract  which  Eusebius  made  from  the  writings  of 
Alexander  Polyhistor,  the  statement  of  the  Babylonian 
priest  was  to  this  effect : 

"  The  tenth  king  of  the  Chaldeans  was  called  Xisuthrus.  In  his 
day  happened  a  great  deluge.  The  god  Chronos  appeared  to  him 
in  a  dream  and  said  that  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month 
Dsesius  mankind  would  be  destroyed  by  a  flood ;  bade  him  there- 
fore to  engrave  a  history  of  the  beginning,  progress,  and  conclu- 
sion of  all  things  and  deposit  it  in  Sippara,  the  city  of  the  sun  ;  to 
build  a  ship  and  embark  with  kith  and  kin  ;  to  convey  on  board, 
moreover,  food  and  drink,  and  drive  in  animals  both  winged  and 
four-footed  ;  and  having  made  all  things  ready,  to  sail  away ;  if 
asked  whither  he  is  sailing,  to  say,  '  To  the  gods ;  to  pray  for  the 
good  of  mankind.' 

He  did  not  neglect  the  admonition,  but  built  a  vessel  five  stadia 
in  length  and  two  in  breadth  ;  put  into  it  everything  which  had 
been  ordered,  and  took  on  board  his  wife,  his  children,  and  his 
kinsfolk. 

The  flood  having  occurred,  as  soon  as  it  abated  Xisuthrus  sent 
forth  certain  birds,  but  they,  not  finding  food  or  any  place  where 
they  might  alight,  returned  to  him  to  the  vessel.  After  some  days ' 
Xisuthrus  again  dismissed  the  birds,  and  they  now  returned  to  the 
vessel  with  their  feet  muddy.  Having  sent  them  forth  the  third 
time,  they  came  no  more  to  the  ship  ;  whence  he  judged  that  land 
had  appeared.  He  then  pushed  apart  a  portion  of  the  covering  2 
of  the  vessel,  and,  seeing  that  the  ship  was  stranded  on  a  moun- 
tain, left  it  with  his  wife  and  daughter  and  the  pilot.  He  then 
worshipped  on  the  earth  ;  built  an  altar  and  sacrificed  to  the  gods. 
Afterward,  with  those  who  had  come  out  of  the  vessel  with  him, 
he  disappeared. 

When  those  with  Xisuthrus  did  not  return,  they  who  had  re- 
mained in  the  vessel  quitted  it  and  sought  him,  calling  him  by 

1  According  to  the  extract  which  Eusebius  takes  from  Abydenus,  Berosus 
stated  that  the  birds  were  sent  forth  on  the  third  day  after  the  cessation  of 
the  rain,  and  the  second  time  after  other  three  days. 

2  Properly,  stitching  ;  that  which  is  stitched  or  united  ;  hence  a  covering  of 
cloth  or  skin  as  being  stitched  together,  in  distinction  from  a  roof  of  planks. 
Cp.  the  Hebrew  word  in  Gen.  viii.  13,  elsewhere  used  for  the  covering  of  skins 
wherewith  the  tabernacle  was  roofed. 


THE    DELUGE  115 

name.  Xisuthrus  himself,  indeed,  appeared  to  them  no  more ; 
but  a  voice  camo  from  the  air  admonishing  them,  as  a  thing  nec- 
essary,  to  be  religious;  for  on  account  of  his  piety  he  is  on  his  way 
to  dwell  with  the  gods,  and  bis  wife  and  daughter  and  the  pilot 

partake  of  the  same  honor.  He  told  them,  moreover,  to  return  to 
Babylonia,  and,  as  decreed,  recover  the  writings  from  Sippara  and 
give  them  to  mankind  ;  moreover,  that  where  they  now  are  is  the 
land  of  Armenia.  When  they  heard  these  words  they  offered  sac- 
rifices to  the  gods  and  journeyed  on  foot  to  Babylonia. 

Of  this  ship,  which  was  stranded  in  Armenia,  a  portion  still  re- 
mains in  the  Gordysean  Mountains  of  Armenia  ;  from  it  peo2>le  get 
bitumen,  which  they  scratch  off  and  use  for  averting  evil." 

The  question  of  the  relation  of  the  subject-matter  of 
the  cuneiform  tale  to  the  story  related  by  Berosus  may 
be  dismissed  with  a  word.  Beyond  question  the  two  ac- 
counts relate  to  the  same  event.  Each  tale  originated 
(as  wTill  presently  be  proved)  in  Babylonia,  each  tells  of 
a  flood  in  Babylonia,  each  dates  it  in  the  earliest  ages, 
each  describes  similar  occurrences  and  in  similar  order, 
and  in  each  the  names  of  the  hero  and  his  father  are  ety- 
mologically  the  same  ;  for  Tsitnapishtim,  it  would  ap- 
pear from  the  tablet,  was  also  called  Atra-chasis,  and  as 
Smith  pointed  out,  Xisuthrus  is  but  the  Grecized  form 
of  this  cuneiform  name,  the  component  parts  being 
transposed.'  The  father  of  Xisuthrus  was  Otiartes  or 
Opartes,  a  name  which  corresponds  to  the  cuneiform 
Ubaratutu. 

But  the  relation  of  the  cuneiform  account  to  the  story 
told  by  Berosus  is  of  small  interest  compared  with  the 
question  of  the  bearing  of  the  Babylonian  tradition  on 
the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  narrative. 

Preliminary  to  such  an  investigation  it  is  necessary 
to  know  the  exact  relation  between  the  Babylonian  and 
Hebrew  accounts.     Is  it  quite  certain  that  the  flood  re- 

1  TSBA  ,  1874,  pp.  r.31-33;  Haupt,  Sintfluth,  S.  23,  Anm.  7;  KAT-.,  S.  65 
f . ;  Jensen,  Kosniologie,  S.  385  f. 


11G  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TKADITION 

ported  by  the  Babylonians  is  the  deluge  recorded  in 
Genesis  ?  What  is  the  date  and  origin  of  the  cuneiform 
account?  And  what  is  the  character  of  the  cuneiform 
story  ? 

In  regard  to  the  identity  of  the  flood  described  in  the 
two  accounts,  it  is  noticeable  that  the  names  of  the  lead- 
ing persons  arc  respectively  different — so  different  as  to 
defy  identification.  The  name  Noah  bears  no  outward 
resemblance  to  Xisuthrus  or  Tsitnapishtim  ; 1  and  Ubara- 
tutu,  or  translated  into  Assyrian,  Kidin-Marduk — i.  e., 
Servant  of  god  Marduk,  none  to  Lamech.  Neverthe- 
less there  is  a  striking  coincidence ;  according  to  Bero- 
sus,  Xisuthrus,  the  hero  of  the  flood,  was  the  tenth  ante- 
diluvian king  of  Chaldea  ;  and  in  the  Bible  Noah  is  the 
tenth  antediluvian  patriarch. 

The  home  of  the  hero  may  be  the  same  according  to 
both  accounts.  The  cuneiform  tablet  expressly  states 
that  it  was  in  Babylonia.  Tsitnapishtim  was  a  resident 
of  "  Surippak,  a  city  situated  on  the  Euphrates,"  whose 
patron  deity  was  the  Babylonian  god  Ea  (II  It.  60, 
20  a,  b).  The  same  locality  is  indicated  by  Berosus, 
who  states  that  Xisuthrus  was  a  Chaldean,  the  last  of  the 
ten  antediluvian  kings  of  Chaldea,  and  the  son  of  a  king 
from  the  city  of  Laranchae  ;  that  before  entering  the  ark 
he  buried  a  written  record  of  the  world's  history  in  the 
city  of  Sippara  in  Babylonia ;  and  that  after  the  subsi- 
dence of  the  waters,  the  ark  having  landed  in  Armenia, 
he  ordered  his  companions  to  return  to  Babylonia,  which 
they  did,  and  again  founded  Babylon.  In  the  Hebrew 
account,  as  is  well  known,  the  residence  of  Noah  at  the 
time  of  the  flood  is  left  indefinite.  But  since  no  migra- 
tion of  mankind  from  the  neighborhood  of  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates  (Gen.  ii.  14)  is  recorded,  the  region  watered 

1  Though  Hommel  endeavors  to  find  support  for  reading  Nuch-n;ipishtim, 
PSBA.,  vol.  xv.,  243 


THE    DELUGE  117 

by  these  streams  is  suggested  as  still  the  place  of  his 
abode  ;  likewise,  it'  do  stress  be  laid  on  possible  changes 
in  the  face  <>t"  the  earth  wrought  by  the  Hood,  Noah's 
use  of  pitch  in  the  construction  of  the  ark  indicates  the 
bitumen  pits  of  Babylonia.  While  therefore  the  He- 
brew narrative  makes  no  definite  mention  of  Noah's 
home,  its  indirect  references  harmonize  with  the  state- 
ments of  the  Babylonian  story  and  admit  the  possibility 
that  Babylonia  was  the  locality  whence  Noah  sailed. 

Each  of  the  three  narratives  contains  a  description  of 
the  vessel,  the  Hebrew  and  cuneiform  records  devoting 
large  space  thereto,  whereas  Berosus  mentions  but  few 
features,  and  these  for  the  most  part  incidentally.  But 
no  two  of  these  accounts  agree  in  their  report  of  the 
dimensions  of  the  ship.  According  to  Berosus  its 
length  was  more  than  three  thousand  feet  (almost  five 
times  that  of  the  Great  Eastern ),  and  its  breadth 
more  than  twelve  hundred.  On  the  cuneiform  tablet  (1. 
24)  the  length  is  given  as  COO  cubits,  at  least  the  traces 
which  remain  "  lend  themselves  very  well  to  the  ideo- 
gram for  .  .  .  600."  The  width  and  height  were 
equal,  each  being  14:0  cubits.1  The  Hebrew,  on  the 
other  hand,  assigns  but  three  hundred  cubits  to  the 
length,  and  makes  the  width  fifty  and  the  height  thirty 
cubits.  In  other  words,  if  the  same  measure  is  to  be 
understood  by  cubit,  the  ship  of  Tsitnapishtim  was  twice 
as  long  as  the  ark  of  Noah,  more  than  twice  as  wide,  and 
four  times  as  high.  Bat  in  whatever  respects  the  cunei- 
form and  Hebrew  records  may  agree  or  disagree  as  to  the 
dimensions  of  the  vessel,  their  description  of  its  origin 
and  general  structure  seems  to  be  similar.  According  to 
each,  the  ship  was  built  by  divine  direction  and  according 
to  a  divinely  furnished  plan,  was  divided  into  compart- 
ments (1.   oil),  provided  with  a  door  (1.  84  and  89)  and 

»Haupt,  PAOS.,  1888,  p.  lxxxix  ;  Ikitriige,  vol.  L,  124  ff. 


118  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

window  (1.  12(J),  pitched  within  and  without  with  bitumen 
(1.  62,  63),  and  roofed  over  to  protect  it  from  the  sea  (1. 
26  ;  cp.  Gen.  viii.  13).  And  yet  how  different  the  ves- 
sels still !  The  ark  (to  judge  from  the  name)  was  ap- 
parently a  sort  of  raft,  with  sides  and  a  covering  which 
was  not  wooden,  and  drifted  about  uncontrolled  on  the 
waters ;  whereas  the  cuneiform  narrative  represents  the 
vessel  as  a  "  ship  "  which  a  pilot  guided  on  its  course. 

In  this  vessel  certain  men  and  beasts  were  to  find 
safety.  But  here  again  the  Hebrew  and  Babylonian  ac- 
counts disagree.  There  is  a  marked  difference  in  the 
personnel.  Noah  went  into  the  ark,  and  his  sons  and  his 
wife,  and  his  sons'  wives  with  him  (Gen.  vii.  7),  "  that  is, 
eight  souls  "  (1  Pet.  iii.  20)  ;  but  Xisuthrus  takes  with 
him,  according  to  Berosus,  not  only  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, including  a  daughter,  but  also  his  kith  and  kin 
generally,  and  in  addition  a  pilot ;  or,  following  the  cu- 
neiform report,  his  wife  (of  children  not  a  word  is  said) 
— his  wife,  his  men-servants  and  maid-servants,  the  arti- 
sans and  a  pilot.  And  yet  there  is  agreement  between 
the  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  traditions.  In  both  the 
hero  was  authorized  to  save  not  himself  alone,  but  his 
household  as  well,  and  he  was  commanded  to  take  on 
board  with  him  living  creatures  of  every  sort,  or,  in  the 
phraseology  of  the  inscription,  "  seed  of  life  of  every 
kind  "  (1.  22  and  79),  in  order  to  "  keep  seed  alive  "  on  the 
earth  (Gen.  vii.  3  and  line  21). 

The  two  accounts  evidently  differ  furthermore  as  to  the 
duration  of  the  flood;  for  while  the  Hebrew  writer  rep- 
resents the  storm  as  raging  forty  days,  the  cuneiform  ac- 
count allows  but  seven.  Data  for  farther  comparison  are 
wanting. 

The  accounts  also  disagree  as  to  the  landing-place  of 
the  vessel.  The  mountains  of  Ararat  is  the  locality  as- 
signed by  the  Hebrew  writer ;  a  name  that  of  old — cer- 


THE  DELUGE  1  L9 

tainly  as  far  bark  as  tlio  period  of  the  Assyrian  Empire 
— belonged  to  the  plain  of  tlio  Araxes.  But  the  vessel 
of  Tsitnapishtim  stranded  on  Mt.  Nitsir.  In  the  ninth 
century  before  Christ  a  mountain  was  known  to  the  As- 
syrians by  this  name.  It  stood  cast  of  the  little  Zab 
River  ;  800  miles  indeed  south  of  Ararat,  but  yet  in  the 
same  mountainous  region.  Berosus  fixes  upon  still  a 
third  locality,  one  of  the  Gordyaean  Mountains,1  which  lie 
cast  of  the  Euphrates,  mar  the  river,  almost  equally  dis- 
tant from  Ararat  and  Nitsir,  but  still  in  the  same  general 
region  of  country. 

But  not  to  pursue  the  minute  comparison  of  the  two 
narratives  further,  it  will  sullice  to  exhibit  the  common 
tradition.  By  reason  of  man's  wickedness,-'  God  decreed 
the  destruction  of  all  flesh,  both  man  and  beast,  by  a 
flood.  The  divine  purpose  was  revealed  to  one  mortal, 
the  last  of  a  line  of  ten  worthies.  This  man  was  in- 
structed to  build  a  vessel  of  certain  dimensions  and  ac- 
cording to  a  divinely  given  plan,  to  pitch  it  within  and 
without  with  bitumen,  to  stock  it  with  food,  to  take  into 
it  with  him  his  wife  and  family,  and  likewise  living  creat- 
ures of  every  kind,  not  only  domestic  animals,  but  also 
wild  beasts  and  birds,  in  order  "  to  keep  seed  alive  upon 
the  face  of  the  earth."  The  man  did  so.  When  the 
advent  of  the  deluge  drew  nigh,  the  man  was  divinely 
warned  now  at  length  to  gather  his  family  and  the  ani- 
mals together  and  to  enter  the  ark,  for  the  set  time  was  at 
hand.  Again  the  man  obeyed  and  entered  the  vessel. 
The  storm  burst,  the  flood  prevailed,  and  mankind  was 
destroyed.  Alter  some  time  the  storm  ceased,  the  Avaters 
began  to  assuage,  and  the  sea  to  withdraw  to  its  bed. 
The   ship  finally  stranded    on  a  mountain,  and,  round 

■Now  called  the  Djudi  Mountains.  According  to  Smith:  "The  present 
tradition  of  the  country  places  the  mountain  of  the  ark  in  the  Jehel  Djudi, 
opposite  Djczireh  "  (Assyrian  Discoveries,  p.  217). 

11  So  apparently  the  Babylonian,  1.  170. 


120  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

about,  the  mountain  tops  became  visible  (order  differs  in 
the  two  accounts).  After  waiting  some  days  the  man, 
in  order  to  inform  himself  of  the  state  of  the  water, 
began  to  send  forth  at  intervals  various  birds  (of  which 
both  accounts  mention  the  raven  and  the  dove),  and  at 
length  learned  that  the  waters  were  abated.  The  in- 
mates of  the  vessel,  both  man  and  beast,  having  gone 
forth,  gratitude  for  deliverance  was  manifested  by  a  thank- 
offering.  And  the  Lord  (or,  in  the  Babylonian  phrase- 
ology, the  gods)  smelled  a  sweet  savor,  and  the  Lord  said  : 
"I  Avill  not  again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for  man's 
sake,  .  .  .  neither  shall  all  flesh  be  cut  off  any  more 
by  the  waters  of  a  flood."  According  to  the  Babylonian 
story,  Ea  pled  with  Bel  in  the  assembly  of  the  gods,  say- 
ing :  "  [Hereafter]  on  the  sinner  lay  his  sin,  on  the  evil- 
doer his  evil  deeds.  .  .  .  Instead  of  causing  a  flood, 
send  the  lion  and  the  hyena,  famine  and  pestilence,  and 
let  them  diminish  men." 

Here,  then,  are  the  facts,  and  they  admit  of  but  one 
conclusion.     Stated  in  a  twofold  manner  this  is  : 

1.  The  theme  of  the  two  accounts  is  the  same  ;  the 
cuneiform  and  the  Hebrew  records  describe  the  same 
event. 

2.  The  Hebrew  narrative,  at  least  as  a  whole,  has  not 
been  derived  from  the  cuneiform  ;  the  accounts  are  inde- 
pendent save  in  their  common  origin.  For,  be  it  ob- 
served, the  Hebrew  story  is  not  simply  the  cuneiform  tale 
stripped  of  its  polytheism,  but  a  variant  version  ;  for  even 
after  the  removal  of  the  polytheistic  elements  the  stories 
conflict.  Many  of  the  discrepancies  have  already  been 
pointed  out.  It  may  be  added  that  the  accounts  are 
notably  at  variance  in  the  picturesque  incident  of  the 
birds,  as  to  their  number,  their  kind,  and  the  actions  by 
which  they  furnished  a  clew  to  the  condition  of  the 
waters. 


THE   DELUGE  1-1 

Furthermore,  no  features  of  the  Hebrew  narrative  were 
learned  from  the  cuneiform  tale  in  the  time  of  the  exile, 
and  modified  to  harmonize  with  other  Israelitish  tradi- 
tions; for,  as  will  presently  be  shown,  every  incident  of 
the  Hebrew  story  was  current  in  Israel  before  the;  exile. 
Antiquity  belongs  even  to  the  variant  portions.  There 
certainly,  therefore,  lie  before  us  two  independently 
transmitted  traditions  of  the  same  event. 

With  much  less  argumentation  the  date  and  origin  of 
the  cuneiform  account  may  be  established.  It  belongs, 
even  in  its  present  form,  to  a  period  earlier,  and  proba- 
bly very  much  earlier,  than  the  seventh  century  before 
Christ.  The  colophon  impressed  on  the  clay  states  that 
the  tablet  was  the  property  of  Icing  Ashurbanipal  (AL3., 
8. 109,  Z.  295).  This  monarch  reigned  over  Assyria  from 
668  to  626  before  Christ.  It  is  furthermore  declared  to 
be  a  copy  of  an  older  tablet  (Z.  293)  ;  but  the  date  of  the 
original  is  not  stated,  and  cannot  be  definitely  deter- 
mined. The  great  epic  of  Izdubar,  of  which  the  story 
of  the  deluge  is  an  episode,  originated  in  Babylonia  ; 
for  the  scenes  are  laid  in  that  land.  How  early  the  tale 
existed  there  in  the  form  in  which  it  appears  on  the 
tablet  remains  uncertain.  But  the  essentials  of  the  tale 
were  current  centuries  before  AshurbanipaTs  day.  The 
appearance  of  Izdubar  in  engravings  on  gems  and  sig- 
net cylinders  of  the  early  Chaldean  period,  two  or  three 
thousand  years  before  Christ,  indicates  this ;  and  for  the 
existence  of  the  story  of  the  deluge  in  special,  testimony 
is  afforded  by  an  ancient  name  of  the  city  of  Surippak, 
where  Tsitnapishtim,  the  hero  of  the  flood  and  builder  of 
the  vessel,  lived.  It  is  called  Ship-town  (I  E.,  4G,  1),  a 
name  which  appears  on  monuments  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury before  Christ  and  earlier  (Smith,  TSBA.,  1874,  p. 
589  ;  Assyr.  Disc,  p.  212).  As  confirmatory  testimony  it 
may  be  mentioned  that  the  god  Ea,  who  revealed  to  Tsit- 


122  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

napishtira  the  coming  flood,  and  ordered  him  to  build  the 
vessel,  and  protected  him  and  his  companions  from  the 
anger  of  Bel,  was  worshipped  in  this  Ship-town  as  a  pa- 
tron deity  of  the  city  (II  E.  60,  21). 

The  story  of  the  flood,  then,  as  told  on  the  cuneiform 
tablet  of  the  seventh  century  before  Christ,  was  carried 
to  Assyria  from  Babylonia,  and  in  its  essential  features 
is  traceable  to  the  early  Chaldean  period. 

It  still  remains  to  notice  the  character  of  the  cuneiform 
account.  While  it  has  mythological  features  it  is  not 
a  myth.  A  myth  is  an  imaginary  tale,  which  gener- 
ally has  some  reference  more  or  less  remote  to  physical 
phenomena,  but  which  has  no  other  foundation  in  fact ; 
the  Babylonian  story  relates  history. 

For  its  historical  character  may  be  said  :  1.  Apart  from 
its  polytheism  the  Babylonian  tale  is  credible.  It  de- 
scribes a  physical  disturbance  for  which  the  alluvial  plain 
of  Babylonia  is  adapted  (Suss,  Die  Sintfluth),  and  nar- 
rates an  escape  which  in  itself  is  probable.  2.  The  an- 
cient Semitic  peoples,  both  Hebrew  and  Babylonian,  re- 
garded the  story  of  a  flood,  whereby  all  men  except  one 
family  were  destroyed,  as  historically  true.  They  refer 
to  it  as  a  crisis  in  history.  The  Hebrews,  and  in  portions 
of  their  writings  which  the  divisive  critics  declare  to  be 
pre-exilic,  describe  it  as  a  turning-point  in  human  affairs, 
the  beginning  of  a  new  race.  Berosus  devoted  the  second 
book  of  his  Babylonian  history  to  the  ten  antediluvian 
kings  of  the  Chaldeans,  considering  the  flood  to  mark  the 
close  of  the  first  period  of  the  history  of  mankind.  Ashur- 
banipal  refers  to  inscriptions  "  of  the  time  before  the 
flood"  (Lehmann,  Shamash-shumukin,  Inscription  13, 
col.  L,  18)  ;  and  an  Assyrian  scribe,  recording  names  of 
ancient  kings,  remarks  concerning  certain  of  them  that 
they  are  "kings  which  were  after  the  flood"  (V  R.,  4-1, 
col.  I.,  20).     3.  Confirmation  of  the  historical  character 


THE    DELUGE  123 

of  the  Semitic  tradition  is  afforded  by  the  existence  of 
similar  stories  among  other  races;  of  special  importance 
being  the  Aryan  tradition  in  India  to  the  effect  that  a 
man,  saved  from  the  waters  of  a  world-wide  deluge  in  a 
vessel  which  finally  landed  on  a  northern  mountain,  be- 
came the  progenitor  of  the  new  race  of  men.  4.  It  is 
improbable  that  without  such  a  catastrophe  a  tale  should 
arise  of  such  extensive  influence  upon  human  thought. 
For  reasons  such  as  these,  it  is  almost  universally  reeog- 
nized  that  a  foundation  of  fact  underlies  the  Semitic 
story  of  the  flood. 

But  while  the  cuneiform  account  treats  of  an  historical 
event,  it  yet  elaborates  facts  into  marvels,  ceasing  to  be 
history  and  becoming  legend.  Nevertheless  the  legen- 
dary element  is  small.  Expunge  the  mythological  lan- 
guage, and  a  tale  remains  in  the  main  soberly  told. 

The  results  thus  far  yielded  by  the  discussion  are  that 
the  cuneiform  account  is  a  legend  ;  a  legend  which  orig- 
inated in  Balrylonia  an  unknown  length  of  time  before 
the  seventh  century  before  Christ,  and  in  its  funda- 
mental features  goes  back  to  hoary  antiquity  ;  a  legend, 
furthermore,  which  treats  of  the  same  event  as  the  He- 
brew record.  It  is  now  pertinent  to  inquire  what  light 
this  Babylonian  story  throws  upon  the  related  Hebrew 
narrative. 

The  divisive  critics  affirm,  as  is  well  known,  that  two 
accounts  are  interwoven  in  the  Hebrew  narrative  of  the 
flood,  of  which  one  antedates  and  the  other  postdates 
the  exile.  The  critics  essentially  agree  among  themselves 
as  to  which  of  the  two  component  tales  each  several  part 
of  the  composite  story  belongs  ;  and  they  agree  also  that 
the  existence  of  two  component  tales  is  established  by 
difference  of  style,  repetitions,  contradictions,  anachro- 
nisms. Before  seeking  light  on  this  special  question  from 
the  cuneiform  account,  it  is  worth  the  effort  to  obtain  a 


124  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

clear  view  of  the  contents  of  the  tradition  as  it  circulated 
in  pre-exilic  Israel.  All  critics  agree  that  certain  inci- 
dents related  in  the  tradition  of  the  flood  were  of  old 
current  among  the  Hebrews.  The  Jehovist's  version  is 
admittedly  pre-exilic.  The  account  of  the  ark's  landing 
and  of  the  bow  in  the  cloud  are  considered  equally  early 
(Wellhausen,  Proleg.,  S.  328-29).  The  only  incident  of 
the  Hebrew  tale  not  yet  accounted  for  is  the  introduc- 
tory scene  of  the  priestly  post-exilic  version,  where  the 
command  to  build  the  ark  is  given,  the  reason  for  its  con- 
struction stated,  and  the  plan  furnished.  But  this  inci- 
dent, in  itself  and  apart  from  the  literary  form  in  which 
it  is  narrated,  was  naturally  a  part  of  the  current  tale ; 
the  command  to  build  the  ark  logically  belongs  to  a  nar- 
rative of  the  flood,  and  would  scarcely  have  been  want- 
ing in  the  Israelitish  tradition.  The  opening  sentence  of 
chapter  seven,  a  portion  of  the  "mutilated"  version  of 
the  Jehovist,  implies  that  this  incident  was  also  in  the 
early  tradition  current  in  Israel  ;  for  it  is  improbable 
that  to  the  statement  that  the  Lord  determined  to  "  de- 
stroy man  from  the  face  of  the  ground,  .  .  .  but  Noah 
found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  "  (vi.  7,  8),  there  was 
abruptly  added  :  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Noah,  'Come, 
thou,  and  all  thy  house  into  the  ark.' "  The  wording  of 
this  sentence  seems  to  imply  that  the  Jehovist's  narra- 
tive in  its  complete  form  had  previously  mentioned  a 
command  to  build  an  ark,  and  contained  some  descrip- 
tion of  it.  The  evidence  is  strong  that,  while  the  Jeho- 
vist's account  is  admittedly  pre-exilic,  all  the  additional 
incidents  found  in  the  priestly  version  were  likewise 
known  in  Israel  before  the  exile,  and  probably  included 
in  the  Jehovist's  narrative  itself.  The  story  of  the  flood 
may  have  been  repeated  by  the  Israelites,  as  by  people 
of  to-day,  in  a  variety  of  forms  and  in  diverse  literary 
style  ;  but  however  that  may  be,  the  Hebrew  record,  not 


THE   DELUGE  l'J."> 

;is  parcelled  out  to  different  writers,  but  only  in  its  pres- 
ent so-called  composite  form,  tells  all  the  incidents  qftJu 
flood  as  known  of  old  in  Israel. 

Furthermore,  the  Hebrew  record  in  its  present  form 
corresponds,  except  in  the  one  matter  of  the  rainbow, 
incident  by  incident  with  the  cuneiform  account.  The 
incidents  of  the  Hebrew  tale  were  known  in  pre-exilic 
times,  and  the  cuneiform  record  dates  in  its  present 
form  from  a  period  anterior  to  the  seventh  century. 
Sere,  then,  is  evidence  that  the  tradition  of  the  flood  had 
a  definite  content  before  the  separation  of  the  two  peo- 
ples; evidence  also  that  the  incidents  of  the  Hebrew  tale 
were  not  of  Israelitish  invention  but  belonged  fco  the 
primitive  tradition  ;  evidence  that  the  story,  with  its 
present  material  and  preseni  arrangement,  is  essentially 
the  old  tale  as  it  came  in  with  the  Hebrew  migration  and 
as  it  lived  from  generation  to  generation  in  the  mouth  of 

the    people. 

It  may  be  added  that  such  details  of  description  as 
the  mention  of  bitumen,  of  periods  of  seven  days,  and  of 
altar  and  sacrifice  are  ;il so  appropriate  in  a  Babylonian 
tradition  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Hebrew  migration  ; 
that  "the  boundary  line  between  clean  and  unclean  ani- 
mals is  marked  by  nature,"  and  their  classification  in  a 
genera]  way,  according  to  this  principle,  is  admitted  by 
critics  to  have  existed  before  Moses  ;  that  as  for  the  olive, 
while  it  has  never  been  known  as  a  tree  of  the  Babylo- 
nian plain,  Strabo  testified  to  its  occurrence  in  Armenia  ; 
it  is  supposed  to  be  indigenous  in  Northern  India  and 
other  temperate  Asiatic  regions  (Marsh,  in  Johnson's 
Cyclopaedia);  in  its  varieties  it  is  now  found  "from  the 
basin  of  the  Mediterranean  to  .  .  .  New  Zealand;" 
and  "the  wild  olive  extends  eastward  to  the  Caspian, 
while,  locally,  it  occurs  in  Afghanistan  "  i  EncycL  Britan.). 
Not  only,  then,  is  there  evidence  that  all  the  incidents  of 


126  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TEADITION 

the  flood  found  in  the  present  Hebrew  record  were  fa- 
miliar to  the  Hebrew  emigrants,  but  there  is  justification 
for  the  assumption  that  the  salient  features  of  the  pres- 
ent description  also  existed  in  their  day. 

Notwithstanding  the  evidence  that  all  the  incidents  of 
the  Hebrew  account  were  current  of  old  in  Israel  and 
that  even  the  details  of  description  might  appropriately 
appear  in  the  narrative  as  early  as  the  days  of  Moses,  it 
is  held  that  two  accounts  of  the  same  event  are  inter- 
woven in  the  present  record  and  are  distinguished  from 
each  other  by  style,  by  repetitions,  and  by  contradictions. 
The  modern  theory  of  division  is  not  restricted  to  the 
flood  episode,  but  embraces  a  large  portion  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  it  is  only  in  regard  to  the  narrative  of  the 
deluge,  however,  that  a  voice  comes  from  remote  antiqui- 
ty to  pronounce  on  the  criteria  and  results  of  modern 
criticism.  All  the  more  attentively,  therefore,  let  that 
voice  be  heard. 

The  divisive  critics  assert  that  the  storm  which  pro- 
duced the  deluge  is  described  twice  in  two  successive 
verses  of  the  seventh  chapter.  It  is  there  written  :  "The 
same  day  were  all  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  broken 
up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were  opened ;  and  the 
rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights."  It 
is  urged  that  here  two  literary  styles  are  apparent :  one 
vivid  and  poetical,  the  other  the  calm  recital  of  prose  ;  that 
the  descriptions  are  furthermore  contradictory,  the  one 
representing  the  deluge  as  caused  by  rain  only,  the  other 
by  the  outburst  of  subterranean  waters  also.  An  answer 
to  this  argument  is  not  far  to  seek.  No  ordinary  rain  of 
forty  days  caused  the  flood  ;  the  water  poured  from  the 
clouds,  streams  overflowed  their  banks,  the  sea,,  dis- 
turbed perhaps  by  earthquakes,  rolled  its  waves  upon 
the  land.  To  tell  this  tale  it  does  not  suffice  to  speak  of 
a  rain.     Adequate  description  requires  the  writer  to  say, 


THE  DELUGE  127 

using  oriental  imagery,  that  the  windows  of  heaven  were 
opened  and  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  broken  up. 
To  tell  how  long  the  storm  lasted,  speaking  no  longer  as 
a  spectator,  but  as  a  statistician,  he  adds  :  "  And  the 
storm  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights." 

Tin1  cuneiform  tale  confirms  this  view,  utterly  depriv- 
ing the  critical  argument  of  force.  Describing  the  rag- 
ing of  the  storm  as  a  spectator,  the  Babylonian  writer  is 
picturesque  and  vivid.  "As  soon  as  the  dawn  appeared, 
a  dark  cloud  ascended  on  the  horizon.  In  the  midst  of 
it  the  storm-god  rolled  the  thunder.  The  gods  Nebo 
and  Marduk  marched  on  before,  went  as  guides  over  hill 
and  dale  ;  the  mighty  pest-god  tore  loose  the  ship  ;  the 
god  Ninib  caused  the  streams  to  overflow  their  banks ; 
the  Anunnaki  lifted  torches  and  made  the  land  to  flicker ; 
the  storm-god  raised  billows  which  reached  to  heaven. 
All  light  was  turned  to  darkness ;  man  saw  not  his  fellow, 
human  beings  were  not  discerned  by  those  in  heaven." 
This  is  the  language  of  enthusiasm  and  poetry.  But 
when  the  narrator  comes  to  state  how  long  the  storm 
lasted,  he  adopts  a  very  different  style  of  speech,  saying  : 
"  Six  days  and  six  nights  wind,  storm,  and  rain  pre- 
vailed;  on  the  seventh  day  the  rain  abated,  the  storm 
which  had  struggled  like  a  woman  in  travail,  rested  ;  the 
sea  withdrew  to  its  bed,  the  violent  wind  and  the  fiood- 
storm  ceased." 

Tin;  cuneiform  account  does  not  disprove  the  theory 
that  two  narratives  are  combined  in  the  Hebrew  record 
of  the  flood,  but  it  shows  that  a  method  employed  to  dis- 
tinguish the  documents  is  precarious.  In  the  only  case 
where  the  method  can  be  tested,  it  fails.  Difference  of 
style  is  not  an  infallible  evidence  of  diversity  of  docu- 
ment. 

It  is  contended,  however,  that  throughout  the  He- 
brew account  two  contradictory  conceptions  of  the  flood 


128  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

are  represented.  Again  the  cuneiform  tale  offers  a  sug- 
gestive parallel.  In  the  Hebrew  record,  the  first  men- 
tion of  the  deluge  is  in  the  portion  ascribed  to  the  priestly 
writer ;  God  forewarns  Noah  that  a  destructive  flood  of 
waters  is  impending,  but  reveals  not  whether  by  rain  or 
by  tidal  wave  or  by  both.  In  the  cuneiform  tale,  the  ap- 
proaching destruction  of  man  is  foretold,  and  Tsitnapish- 
tim  bidden  to  build  a  boat.  The  catastrophe  accordingly 
would  be  wrought  by  a  flood  of  water  ;  but  whether  in  the 
form  of  rain  from  heaven,  or  freshet  from  the  northern 
mountains,  or  inflowing  sea  is  not  disclosed.  But  when 
the  set  time  draws  nigh,  the  prophecy  becomes  definite 
and  foretells  rain.  God  warns  Noah  to  enter  the  ark — ■ 
the  other  writer,  according  to  the  divisive  critics,  relates 
this — saying  :  "  Yet  seven  days  and  I  will  cause  it  to  rain 
upon  the  earth."  Likewise  the  cuneiform  account  (a 
change  of  authorship  is  not  thought  necessary),  as  the 
time  approaches,  becomes  definite.  "  When  the  sender 
of  violent  rain  causes  rain  to  pour  down  in  the  evening, 
enter  into  the  boat."  When  the  storm  breaks  both  writ- 
ers, as  already  shown,  become  vivid  in  language,  using  fa- 
miliar imagery.  Finally  in  retrospect,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  record,  God  promises  not  to  again  cut  off  all 
flesh  by  the  waters  of  a  flood ;  while,  according  to  the  in- 
scription, the  god  Ea  pleads  that  another  such  storm 
may  not  again  destroy  mankind.  Surely,  in  view  of  the 
absolute  similarity  which  obtains  between  the  cuneiform 
inscription  and  the  Hebrew  record,  in  their  description 
of  the  flood,  no  critic  is  authorized  to  say  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Hebrew  record  is  on  this  subject  contradic- 
tory, and  indicative  of  two  writers  with  different  concep- 
tions. 

The  testimony  of  the  cuneiform  tale  is,  indeed,  insufli- 
cient  to  disprove  the  theory  that  the  narrative  of  the 
flood  is  a  compilation  oiit  of  different  documents.     But 


THE    DELUGE  129 

the  argument  for  two  documents  which  is  based  on  differ- 
ence of  style  is  proven  to  be  of  doubtful  value;  for  in 

one  important  test  case  it  is  found  on  evidence  from 
antiquity  to  be  invalid  and  untrue.  And  the  claim  that 
the  extracts  from  the  reputed  documents  are  contradic- 
tory and  therefore  unhistorical  is  proven  false  at  every 
point  where  it  can  be  tested  by  antiquity.  The  charge 
of  discrepancy  has  been  recklessly  made  and  is  ground- 
less. 

This  ancient  testimony  in  regard  to  the  Hebrew  rec- 
ord of  the  flood  has  wider  reach  than  that  narrative. 
It  has  important  bearing  upon  fundamental  principles 
of  the  divisive  criticism,  and  it  calls  in  question  the 
correctness  of  the  application  of  these  principles  in  the 
past. 

The  exegetical  importance  of  the  Babylonian  tale  is 
small,  so  far  as  it  concerns  words  and  phrases,  its  legend- 
ary character,  as  well  as  the  tendency  sometimes  appar- 
ent in  it  to  embellishment,  rendering  it  an  untrustworthy 
guide.  Occasionally,  however,  it  is  suggestive,  as  when 
it  fixes  upon  a  "  mountain  of  the  land  Nitsir,"  and  not 
upon  "  the  mountains  of  Ararat,"  as  the  landing-place  of 
the  ark  ;  for  the  mountain  known  in  Ashurnatsirpal's  day 
as  Nitsir  stood  hard  by  the  district  called  Urtu.  Origi- 
nally Hebrew  and  Babylonian  accounts  were  one,  and  of 
course  indicated  the  same  locality ;  the  question  is  justly 
raised  whether  the  like-sounding  words  Urartu  (Ararat) 
and  Urtu  (the  t  in  each  is  teth)  have  not  afterward  be- 
come confounded. 

The  fact,  however,  now  clearly  apparent  that  the  He- 
brew narrative  is  a  tradition  transmitted  through  the 
fathers  is  of  vast  exegetical  importance  ;  for  it  materially 
aids  in  determining  the  scope  of  thought.  The  narrative 
originated  in  the  accouut  of  eye-witnesses  and  has  been 
handed  down  as  other  traditions  have  been.  Its  lan- 
9 


130  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

guage  is,  of  course,  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  it  bore 
to  men  centuries  before  the  days  of  Moses ;  and  it  must 
not  for  one  moment  be  forgotten  that  the  men  of  that  age 
had  a  totally  different  conception  of  the  world  from  what 
we  have,  and  meant  a  totally  different  thing  by  the  ex- 
pression "  the  whole  world  "  from  what  we  would  mean. 
What  do  these  men  of  olden  time,  who  were  eye-witnesses 
of  the  catastrophe  and  whose  description  of  the  event 
was  determined  by  their  conception  of  the  world,  say  of 
the  extent  of  the  flood  ?  Those  who  escaped  the  destruc- 
tion told  their  children  after  them  that  God  revealed  the 
coming  of  this  flood  to  a  certain  man  and  warned  him  to 
provide  a  vessel  for  the  saving  of  his  house,  directing  him 
to  take  every  kind  of  land  animals  with  him  into  the  ves- 
sel for  the  preservation  of  brute  life,  announcing  that  the 
waters  were  sent  to  blot  out  man  from  under  heaven  be- 
cause of  his  abounding  iniquity,  and  that  beasts  and  rep- 
tiles were  to  be  involved  in  the  destruction  (vi.  19,  P,  and 
vii.  4,  J.).  The  survivors  related  also  that  the  man  who 
had  been  forewarned  heeded  the  admonition  and  built  the 
ark.  The  flood  came.  During  its  supremacy,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  these  eye-witnesses,  all  the  high  moun- 
tains that  were  under  the  whole  heaven — i.e.,  which  were 
within  man's  changing  horizon — were  covered  and  that 
all  flesh  wherein  was  the  breath  of  life,  man  and  cattle 
and  creeping  thing,  perished,  and  that  they  alone  who 
were  in  the  ark  escaped.  They  bore  witness  to  what  they 
had  seen.  Their  later  observation  and  the  experience  of 
their  descendants  who  transmitted  the  tradition  confirmed 
the  impression  first  made  of  the  destruction  of  life,  for 
as  they  journeyed  they  found  the  earth  empty.  The 
deluge  had  accomplished  the  purpose  of  God. 

No  testimony  for  or  against  a  universal  deluge  is  con- 
tained in  the  tradition,  either  in  its  Babylonian  or  Hebrew 
transmission,  unless  il  be  involved  in  the  announced  pur- 


THE   DELUGE  131 

pose  of  God  to  destroy  man  whom  he  had  created  from 
the  face  of  the  ground,  both  man  and  beast  and  creeping 
tiling  and  fowl  of  the  air.1  Even  this  announcement  is 
not  testimony  to  a  universal  deluge,  unless  animals  were 
distributed  over  all  parts  of  the  globe.  Moreover  the 
Language  which  is  used  to  announce  the  divine  purpose 
must  not  be  interpreted  as  meaning  more  than  the  sense 
which  it  conveyed  to  the  people  to  whom  it  was  addressed. 
It  must  be  interpreted  also  in  the  light  of  the  prob- 
able meaning  which  Noah  attached  to  the  command  to 
him  to  take  every  sort  of  animals  with  hiin  into  the  ark 
and  especially  to  the  command  to  take  all  food  that  is 
eaten;  for  he  certainly  did  not  attempt  to  penetrate 
distant  unexplored  regions  of  the  earth  in  order  to  dis- 
cover unknown  animals  and  secure  for  them  their  own 
peculiar  and  indispensable  food.  Finally  the  language 
must  be  interpreted  without  violence  to  the  require- 
ments of  passages  like  Joel  iii.  1;  John  xii.  32;  Dan. 
vi.  25. 

To  the  discussion  of  the  Semitic  tradition  of  the  flood, 
which  has  occupied  the  preceding  pages,  the  chronology 
of  the  Hebrew  account  is  appended  as  the  concluding 
paragraph.  The  scheme  is  worthy  of  consideration  be- 
cause of  its  unit'*  >nii  adherence  to  the  data  of  the  Hebrew 
text,  because  of  its  constant  employment  of  the  method 
used  by  the  Hebrew  writer,  and  because  of  the  peculiar 
interlocking  of  its  results. 

It  appears  from  verses  three  and  four  of  the  eighth 
chapter  compared  with  the  seventh  chapter  and  eleventh 
verse  that  the  months  are  reckoned  at  thirty  days  each, 
and  that  the  number  of  days  which  measure  an  interval 
of  time  are  obtained  by  subtracting  the  earlier  terminal 
date  from  the  later  or,  vice  versa,  the  later  date  is  found 

1  Gen.  vi.  7;  doubtless  equivalent  to  "  man  and  with  him  beast,  etc."  Com- 
pare further  vi.  13,  17  ;  vii.  4  ;  viii.  21  ;  ix.  10,  15. 


132 


GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 


by  adding  the  given  days  to  the  earlier  date.  Employ- 
ing this  method  strictly,  the  following  chronology  re- 
sults : 


vii. 

4, 

vii. 

11 

vii. 

12 

vii. 

24. 

viii 

3b 

viii 

4. 

viii 

5. 

viii 

6. 

id  10.    Command  to   begin   embarking  the 

ANIMALS, 

Entrance  of  Noah  into  the  ark,  and. 
later  in  the  day,  bursting  of  the  storm, 
Rain  was  upon  the  earth  40  days 
and  40  nights,  so  that  the 
Rain  ceased  toward  evening 

The  waters  prevailed  on  the  earth 
150  days,  so  that  the 
Ark  stranded 

The  waters  decreased  continually 
until  the 
Tors  of  the  mountains  were  seen 
After  seeing  the  mountain  tops, 
Noah  waited  40  days  ;  expecting  that, 
as  the  rain  had  fallen  40  days,  the 
waters  would  perhaps  abate  from  the 
ground  in  40  days  ;  and  then  (or  on  the 
following  day)  the 
Raven  Released,  which  returned  not, 

After  7  days  (cp.   "yet  other,"  v. 
10)  a 
viii.  8.  Dove  released,  which  returned, 

After  yet  other  7  days,  the 
viii.  10.  Dove  released,  which  returned  with 

an  olive  leaf.     So  Noah  knew  that  the 
waters  were  abated  from  ofFthe  earth. 

After  yet  other  7  days,  a  third  time  the 
viii.  12.  Dove  released,  which  did  not  return, 

since  by  this    time   food  and  shelter 
were  to  be  found  outside  of  the  ark, 

Notwithstanding  these  favorable  in- 
dications, Noah  did  not  leave  the  ark, 
but  waited  for  God's  command.  After 
nearly  a  month's  waiting,  on  New 
Year's  day, 
viii.  13b.  Noah  removed  the  covering  of  the 

viii.  13".  ark,    and   saw    that  the  waters  were 

dried  up  and  the  face  of  the  ground  was 
dried, 


2  mo.  10th  day. 

2  mo  17th  day. 

3  mo.  27th  day. 
7  mo.  17th  day. 
10  mo.  1st  day. 


11  mo.  11th  (or 
12th)  day. 

11  mo.  18th  (or 
19th)  day. 


11  mo.  25th  (or 
20th)  day. 


12  mo.   2d  (or 
3d)  day. 


1  mo.  1st  day. 


THE    DELUGE  133 

But  Noah  still  awaited  God's  bid- 
ding, and  <-i^rlit  wet  tea  later,  the  earth 
being  dry,  God  gave  the 

viii.  14,  15.        Command  to  go  fobth  from  thb  abk,     2  mo.    27th  day. 

Tlu>  results  of  the  chronology  are  that  the  firstday  after 
the  terrific  storm  was  the  Eorty-ninth  from  the  command 
to  embark  the  animals  and  the  forty-second  from  the 
entrance  of  Noah  into  the  ark.  The  first  day  that  dawned 
bright  with  peace  and  with  divine  favor  was  a  recurring 
Seventh  day.  The  ark  stranded  in  the  middle  of  the 
week,  a  date  without  significance  at  the  time;  but  the 
tops  of  the  mountains  were  seen  on  the  first  day  of  the 
tenth  month,  which  was  a  recurring  first  day.  The  new 
world,  like  the  old,  began  on  the  first  day  of  a  week. 
Noah  released  the  birds  successively  either  on  the  re- 
curring sixth  day,  in  expectancy  of  the  morrow,  or  on 
the  recurring  seventh  day  itself.  Noah  removed  the  cov- 
ering of  the  ark  on  the  first  day  of  the  first  month.  It 
was  New  Year's  day,  but  the  expectancy  of  divine  favor 
may  have  been  awakened  by  the  fact  that  it  was  the  re- 
curring seventh  day.  But  while  his  hopes  Mere  not  dis- 
appointed, for  the  waters  were  dried,  he  yet  awaits  God's 
command.  Eight  weeks  later,  on  the  recurring  seventh 
day,  Noah  is  bidden  to  disembark.  It  was  a  day  of  di- 
vine favor  and  a  day  of  release  to  the  captive.1 

Some  of  these  recollections  are  preserved  in  the  other 
transmissions.  Josephus,  in  his  slightly  variant  version, 
also  measures  the  period  from  the  mission  of  the  birds 
to  the  release  of  the  animals  from  the  ark  by  sevens, 
though  he  does  it  in  a  different  manner  from  the  biblical 
narrator.  The  cuneiform  account  preserves  the  memo- 
ries that  the  premonitory  storm  burst  in  the  evening, 
that  the  tempest  ceased  on  the  seventh  day,  that  a  period 

1  In  both  narratives  out  of  which  the  Hebrew  record  is  said  to  be  composed, 
the  week  plays  a  part,  whether  the  two  documents  be  combined  or  separated. 
In  J.,  vii ,  4  and  10,  viii,  6-12  ;  in  P.,  vii.,  11,  compared  with  viii.,  5,  1'^,  14. 


134  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

equal  to  the  duration  of  the  rain  was  allowed  to  elapse 
after  the  stranding  of  the  ark  before  essay  was  made 
with  the  birds  to  ascertain  whether  the  waters  had  dis- 
appeared, that  the  dove  was  sent  forth  on  a  seventh  day, 
and  probably  that  the  exit  from  the  ark  took  place  on  a 
seventh  day  ;  though,  as  to  the  last  matter,  the  writer 
transmits  the  tradition  of  his  own  people  ambiguously 
and  leaves  his  statement  in  such  a  form  that  it  might  be 
understood  as  meaning  that  the  several  missions  of  the 
birds  and  the  disembarking  of  the  inmates  of  the  ark 
took  place  within  the  same  twenty-four  hours. 


XIII 

THE  MIGHTY   HUNTER 

The  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis  is  a  table  of  the  nations 
of  the  ancient  world.  It  is  a  bare  catalogue  of  peoples 
and  communities  in  the  form  of  a  genealogy  ;  based  in 
part  on  political  and  geographical  relations,  but  chiefly 
on  the  kinship  of  the  included  nations. 

In  the  midst  of  this  barren  enumeration  of  names  and 
affinities,  a  person  fall  of  life  and  action  and  human 
passion  appears,  who  would  be  a  notable  figure  in  the 
picture  of  any  age,  but  who  stands  out  in  sharper  relief 
against  the  unembellished  background.  Nimrod  was  more 
than  a  mere  link  in  the  genealogical  chain,  serving  only 
to  mediate  the  succession  ;  he  made  history.  "  He  began 
to  be  a  mighty  one  in  the  earth.  He  was  a  mighty  hunter 
before  the  Lord.  And  the  beginning  of  his  kingdom  was 
Babel  and  Erecli  and  Accad  and  Calneh  in  the  land  of 
Shinar." 

A  counterpart  to  Nimrod  exists  in  the  person  of  the 
great  hero  of  early  Babylonian  story,  who  is  commonly 
known  as  Izdubar,  or,  as  there  is  reason  to  pronounce  the 
name,  Gilgamesh.  The  history  of  the  two  celebrities  is 
strikingly  similar.  Both  were  kings  who  ruled  in  the 
land  of  Shinar  and  numbered  Erech  among  their  cities. 
Both  lived  after  the  flood  and  traced  their  descent  from 
the  hero  of  that  event.  Both  were  noted  hunters  ;  Izdu- 
bar being  a  slayer  of  wild  beasts,  whose  encounters  with 
animals,  not  less  than  his  exploits  in  war,  were  embodied 
in  a  poem  and  formed  a  favorite  subject  for  engraver  and 


IZDTJBAR. 

Mural  sculpture  of  Sargon's  Palace.    Height  of  figure,  thirteen  feet  and  a  half. 


THE    MIGHTY    BUNTEK  L37 

sculptor.     But   while   the   comparison  of    Izdubar   and 

Nimrod  is  interesting,  their  identity  has  not  been  proven.1 

In  view  of  the  possibility  of  such  identity,  however, 

the  person  of  Izdubar  requires  a  brief  notice.    The  story 

1  For  nearly  ten  years  the  champion  ot  the  identification  of  Izdubar  with 
Nimrod  has  been  Professor  Hommel.  His  argument  has  been  presented  be- 
fore the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology  and  is  published  in  its  Proceedings, 
vol.  viii.,  119;  xv.,291  ;  xvi.,  13.    Stated  briefly,  the  argument  is  that  the  patron 

deity  of  Izdubar  was  Lugal-turda  ;  and  that  the  wife  of  this  god  was  Nin-gul,  a 
goddess  who  is  declared  to  be  identical  with  the  goddess  Nin-gal,  ",</'«'  being 
only  a  somewhat  later  pronunciation  of  <jnl,  great :  "  but  the  goddess  Nin-gal 
was  the  wife  of  the  moon-god  Sin  ;  accordingly  the  moon-god  Sin  is  one  and 
the  same  deity  with  Lugal-turda,  the  god  of  Izdubar.  Again,  the  end  of  two 
lines  of  a  bilingual  text  remains  which  read 

.     .     .     .     Sin  lord  of  x-y-bar-ra 

.     .     .     .     Sin  lord  of  god  namra  tsit. 
On  another  tablet  the  similar  statement  is  found, 

Sin  lord  of  god  x-y-bar-ra 
Sin  lord  of  namra  tsit. 
Hommel  affirms  that  the  character  indicated  by  x,  which  is  a  single  horizon- 
tal wedge,  has  the  value  <ji  which  belongs  to  the  upright  wedge.  The  charac- 
ter which  is  represented  by  y  was  frequently  used  by  the  Assyrians  as  ideo- 
gram for  their  word  ishdu,  "  foundation."  Here  then  is  a  rebus  :  the  Nincviie 
scribes  have  playfully  employed  the  Assyrian  equivalent  of  a  sign  when  writ- 
ing a  Babylonian  text ;  and  they  intended  the  upper  line  to  be  rendered  "  Sin, 
lord  of  Gi-ishdu-bar-ra."  But  further,  the  moon-god  Sin  was,  as  already  argued, 
the  god  of  Izdubar,  or  Gishdubar,  as  Hommel  would  read  the  name;  and  the 
lord  of  Gi-ishdu-bar-ra  is,  according  to  the  bilingual  inscriptions  just  quoted, 
the  lord  of  namra  tsit :  from  which  it  follows  that  Izdubar  or  Gishdubar  equals 
Namra:  .-it  or  Nimrod.  The  argument  rests,  in  the  first  place,  on  the  assump- 
tion that  Nin-gal  and  Nin-gul  are  identical,  for  which  there  is  not  the  shallow 
of  proof.  It  also  requires  the  second  sign  in  the  name  Izdubar  to  be  pro- 
nounced (<«,  as  indeed  is  currently  done  ;  though,  so  far  as  appears,  the  den- 
tal is  not  properly  daleth,  but  teth  or  tun.  As  to  the  word  or  phrase  namra- 
tsit, it  is  found  elsewhere  with  the  context  (Sin)  [Sha]  namrat  tsitka  (Strassm 
Alph.  Verzeich.,  S0G3),  means  "bright  as  to  rising"  (Delitzsch),  and,  accord- 
ing to  Jensen,  is  an  epithet  of  the  new  moon.  The  god  Sin  is  the  lord 
whose  rising  is  bright,  or  the  god  Sin  is  lord  of  the  new  moon.  It  may  be 
added  that  the  identification  proposed  by  Hommel  is  rejected  by  Delitzsch 
and  Jensen. 

A  question  distinct  from  this  is  interwoven  by  Professor  Hommel  in  his 
later  articles.  Izdubar  equals  Gilgamesh,  according  to  the  fragment  of  a  tablet 
discovered  by  Mr.  Pinches.  Gilgamish  (with  mish  for  mesh),  Hommel  thinks, 
"  was  originally  Gibil-gamish."  In  VR.  30,  fif,  is  found  the  divine  name 
Gi(sh)-bil-ga-mish.     To  this  god   or  deified  man  people  in  remote  antiquity 


138  GENESIS   AJN'U   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

of  which  he  is  the  hero  is  an  elaborate  legend.  The  tale 
is  divided  into  twelve  cantos,  whose  incidents  have  been 
thought  to  follow  the  course  of  the  sun  through  the  zo- 
diac, though  Izdubar  himself  is  unquestionably  distin- 
guished from  the  sun.  Izdubar's  "  mother  was  the  god- 
dess Aruru "  (Jeremias,  Izdubar-Nimrod,  S.  6).  His 
own  name  is  preceded  by  the  determinative  for  god, 
which  probably  indicates  that  he  was  regarded  as  a 
deity ;  and  a  prayer  is  extant  which  was  offered  to  him 
for  health.  These  things,  however,  must  not  obscure  the 
fact  that  Izdubar  is  distinctly  a  man  and  that  back  of 
the  innumerable  legendary  details  of  the  story  there  is  a 
"historical  background."  He  is  indeed  said  to  have 
been  begotten  or  built  by  the  goddess  Aruru ;  but  this 
expression  must  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as 
the  similar  one  is  when  it  is  said  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  begotten  by  the  god  Marduk,  and  Ashurbanipal 
by  Ashur  and  Sin,  who  created  or  built  each  of  these 
kings  "  in  the  womb  of  his  mother  "  (India  House,  col. 
i.,  23-24;  V.  R.,  i.,  3-5).  Izdubar  has  the  divine  de- 
terminative before  his  name,  and  was  in  a  sense  deified ; 
but  in  this  respect  he  does  not  differ  from  other  early 
Babjdonian  kings  whose  historical  existence  is  estab- 
lished. Sargon  of  Agade,  for  example,  and  his  son  Na- 
ram-Sin  appear  with  the  determinative  for  god  before 
their  names  ;  and  Tsitnapishtim,  the  hero  of  the  flood, 

ascribed  the  building  of  Erech's  ancient  wall,  ancient  even  in  those  early  days. 
Erech  was  the  capital  of  Izdubar's  kingdom.  These  passages  Hommel  contends 
must  govern  the  reading  and  restoration  of  the  mutilated  text  quoted  by  Jen- 
sen (Kosmologie,  S.  386).  Accordingly  instead  of  the  pronunciation  and  res- 
toration Gish-tu-bar-[r]a  =  Gish-ti-i[-bir  V  ?],  Hommel  reads  Gish-du-bar-[r]a 
—  Gi-bil-g[a-mish]. 

The  latter  argument  contains  an  element  of  plausibility.  If  correct,  it 
proves  that  the  name  which  George  Smith  provisionally  read  Izdubar  repre- 
sents the  name  Gil- or  Gibilgamish,  and  that  in  the  hoary  past  he  was  regarded 
as  builder  of  an  ancient  wall  of  Erech.  It  does  not,  however,  identify  Izdu- 
bar with  Nimrod.  The  question  of  identity  remains  precisely  where  it  was 
before. 


Ill  i:   MIGHTY    HUM  ER  139 

is,  in  one  instance,  deified  in  the  same  manner.1  Like  a 
man,  Izdubar  made  a  t hank -o tiering  to  heaven  for  vic- 
tory ;  like  a  man,  he  was  a  worshipper  of  the  gods,  his 
especial  protector  being  the  patron  deity  of  the  town 
Marad.  He  was  a  descendant  of  the  hero  of  the  flood, 
an  ancestor  who  is  expressly  called  a  man  and  referred 
to  as  a  mortal.  Izdnbar  himself  is  repeatedly  denomi- 
nated a  man  ;  and  he  was  smitten  with  disease,  was  sub- 
ject to  death,  obtained  but  lost  an  herb  which  had  vir- 
tue to  rejuvenate  him.  He  was  a  noted  hunter,  and  a 
warrior  who  by  a  deed  of  valor  freed  Babylonia  from 
Elamite  rule,  and  in  return  was  rewarded  with  the  throne 
of  Erech.  Though  prayer  is  addressed  to  "  god  Izdu- 
bar," it  is  to  him  as  judge  who  acts  "  like  a  god,"  and  as 
one  to  whom  "  the  sun-god  has  intrusted  a  sceptre  and 
judicial  decision."  Prayer  was  made  to  him,  but  it 
woidd  seem  to  have  been  done  after  his  apotheosis  ;  just 
as  it  is  offered  to  his  ancestor  Tsitnapishtim,  who  had 
been  translated  to  dwell  with  the  gods  {TV  E.  59,  col. 
iv.,  8).  As  to  the  setting  of  the  story  in  which  Izdubar 
is  the  hero,  it  is  historical ;  the  eleventh  canto  is  the  his- 
tory of  the  flood,  decked  out  though  it  is  with  legendary 
embellishments  ;  and  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  cantos, 
which  form  the  body  of  the  tale  and  contain  the  essen- 
tial parts  of  the  career  of  Izdubar.  relate  to  the  suc- 
ssfol  revolt  of  the  people  of  the  plain  against  their 
Elamite  oppressors  and  the  subsequent  foundation  of  a 
Babylonian  kingdom.  The  available  facts  thus  indicate 
that  Izdubar  was  a  man. 

1  Sargon  with  determinative  PSBA..  vi..  12,  without  vi.  11.  Ill  R.  4,  No.  7, 
l.IVR.  34,  Obv.  1  ;  Naram-Sin  with  TSBA.,  v.  442.  without  I  R.  3,  No.  vii., 
IV  R.  34,  Rev.  11  ;  Tsitnapishtim  with  IV  R.  ">9,  col.  iv.,  S.  Compare  further, 
but  with  caution,  Dungi  with  I  R.  2,  X".  ii.,  1  and  4.  without  2  and  3,  with 
both  personal  and  divine  determinative  I  R.  68,  col.  i.,  10  (which  of  course 
makes  it  probable  that  the  name  is  compound,  having  as  its  first  constituent 
god  Bau);  Gamil-Sin  with  TV  B  i  V  No.  4  ;  Amar-Sin  with  I  R.  •').  xii.,  and 
5,  xix  ;  Ishmi-Dagan  with  I  R.  2,  v.  and  vi;  Rim-Sin  with  I  R.  3,  x. ;  Nur- 
Ramman  with  I  R.  2,  iv. 


ANCIENT   BABYLONIAN   TOWER   IN   STAGES. 


XIV 

THE   TOWER   OF   BABEL 

The  translation  of  ;i  cuneiform  text  was  published  by 

Si  nil  h  in  his  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  and  afterwards 
by  Boscawen  in  the  fifth  volume  of  the  Transactions  of 
the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology  under  the  title  of  the 
"  legend  of  the  tower  of  Babel."  Although  this  title  was 
bestowed  upon  it,  the  inscription  was  not  put  forward  by 
either  of  these  writers  with  confidence  as  a  tradition  akin 
to  the  Hebrew  narrative,  and  its  right  to  the  title  has 
been  questioned  by  other  scholars  (Delitzsch,  Bezold). 
It  is,  however,  still  quoted  as  authority  by  Professor 
Sayce  in  his  Hibbert  Lectures.  He  says :  The  text 
"  gives  us,  as  I  believe,  the  Babylonian  version  of  the 
building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  "  (p.  40G). 

The  tablet  is  badly  mutilated.  Only  two  lines  are  in- 
tact, it  would  seem,  and  some  are  so  far  gone  as  to  leave 
but  a  single  word ;  and  a  gap  exists  in  the  middle  of  the 
story  where  the  tablet  has  been  broken  away  entirely. 
Smith's  belief  that  the  text  might  have  reference  to  tho 
incident  at  Babel  was  based  on  a  conjectural  version. 
He  ventured  to  translate  thus  :  "  He  confounded  their 
speech.  Their  strong  place  (tower)  all  the  day  they 
founded ;  to  their  strong  place  in  the  night  entirely  ho 
made  an  end.  In  his  anger  also  word  thus  he  poured 
out :  to  scatter  abroad  he  set  his  face  "  (cp.  lines  7  and 
16-19  below).  Smith's  version  is  now  known  to  be  in- 
correct; and  the  text  has  no  obvious  reference  to  the 
building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  or  any  other  tower,  and 


142  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

no  likeness  to  the  narrative  in  Genesis.  The  resemblance 
to  the  Hebrew  account,  which  Professor  Sayce  discovers, 
appears  only  when  the  lacunae  have  been  filled  by  his  fer- 
tile imagination. 

The  fragments  of  the  inscription  are  exhibited  in  the 
following  translation  in  the  position  which  they  occupy 
on  the  tablet,  in  order  that  the  reader  may  judge  for 
himself  what  the  subject  of  the  story  is.  In  lack  of  a 
context  to  determine  the  meaning  of  ambiguous  gram- 
matical forms,  preference  is  given  in  doubtful  cases  to 
the  rendering  adopted  by  Professor  Sayce. 

" bis     .     .      .      his    heart  was  hostile 

the  father  of  all  tbe  gods  they  hated 

his     .     .     .     his    heart  was    hostile 

Babylon  he  was  hurrying  to  seize  J 

and  great  were  mingling  2  the  mound 

Babylon  he  was  hurrying  to  seize ' 

and  great  were  mingling2  the  mound 

God  Lugal-du-azaga 3  made  lamentation  (?)      .     .     .     . 

In  front  of  him  god  Anu 

To  god  Anu  his  father 

Because  his  heart 

Who  was  bearer  of  intelligence    (?) 

In  those  days     

?  ?         

Goddess  Damkina 

.     .     .    their  [feminine]   .     .  all  the  days  he  troubled  (?) 
During  their    [feminine]    lamentation  in  bed 

he  did  not  end  distress 

In       his       wrath       ho       overthrows       secret       counsel 
.     .     his     .     .     .     mingle  designs  (?)  his  face  he  set 
.     .     gave  a  command  (?  ?)  changed  was  their  [masc]  plan." 

Although  no  record  of  the  attempted  building  of  the 
tower  at  Babel  and  the  confusion  of  tongues  has  been 

1  The  translation  "to  seize,"  which  is  given  by  Professor  Sayce,  is  consid- 
ered by  the  writer  to  he  impossible. 

2  The  word  is  rather  to  be  rendered  "  destroyed." 

3  The  name  means  "  king  of  the  chamber  of  destiny." 


THE  TOWEB   OF    BABEL  143 

found  in  cuneiform  literature,  a  tradition  of  such  an 
event  was  current  outside  of  Israel,  and  was  ascribed  1  »y 
the  transmitters  of  it  to  Babylonia.  Whatever  its  origin, 
it  is  worthy  of  notice.  In  his  History  of  the  Chaldeans, 
Abydenns  quoting  Berosns,   as    is  commonly  believed, 

••  There  are  some  who  say  that  the  men  who  first  arose  [or,  fol- 
lowing a  different  text,  the  first  of  the  earth-born],  having  become 
puffed  up  by  reason  of  their  strength  and  stature,  and  having  de- 
spised the  gods  iu  the  imagination  of  being  better  than  they,  un- 
dertook a  lofty  tower  where  Babylon  now  is.  It  was  already  near 
heaven  when  the  winds  came  to  the  aid  of  the  gods  and  overthrew 
the  work  upon  the  builders.  The  ruins  of  it  are  said  to  be  Baby- 
lon. Hitherto  men  had  been  of  one  tongue,  but  now  discordant 
speech  was  sent  upon  them  from  the  gods  ;  war  also  was  begun 
between  Chronos  and  Titan."  ■ 

Alexander  Polyhistor  quotes  the  Sibyl,  whoever  that 
may  have  be  s  saying: 

'■When  all  men  spoke  the  same  language,  some  of  them  built 
an  exceeding  high  tower  in  order  to  ascend  into  heaven.  God, 
however,  having  made  winds  to  blow,  thwarted  them  and  gave 
to  each  a  language  of  his  own  ;  wherefore  the  city  was  called 
Babvlon.  After  the  flood,  further,  Titan  and  Prometheus  were 
born ;  at  that  time  also  Chronos  was  warred  upon  by  Titan."  3 

1  Clause  beginning  "  war  ako  "  is  not  quoted  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  his 
citation  of  Abydenns. 

5  The  Sibyls  were  ten  in  numbr.  "  The  first  was  from  the  Persians,  and  of 
her  Xicanor  made  mention,  who  wrote  the  exploits  of  Alexander  of  Macedon. 
The  fifth  was  nf  Erythnea,  whom  Apollodorus  of  Erythraea  affirms 
to  have  been  his  own  country-woman  and  that  she  foretold  to  the  Greeks, 
when  they  were  setting  out  for  Pinm,  both.that  Troy  was  doomed  to  destruc- 
tion and  that  Homer  would  write  falsehoods.  .  .  .  She  inserted  her  true 
name  in  her  verse,  and  predicted  that  she  would  be  called  Erythraean,  though 
she  was  born  at  Babylon.  .  .  .  She  is  regarded  among  the  others  as  more 
celebrated  and  noble."     iLactantius,  Divime  institu'iones,  I.,  vL). 

s  The  last  clause  is  not  quoted  by  Syncellus  in  his  extract  from  Alexander 
Polvhistor.  hut  is  included  in  the  citation  as  contained  in  the  Armenian 
Chronicle  of  Eusebius.     The    entire   reference    to   Titan,  Prometheus,    and 


144  GENESIS   AND   SEMITIC   TRADITION 

Why  should  Chronos-Saturn,  Titan,  and  Prornetlieus 
be  mentioned  in  the  same  context  with  the  tower  at  Ba- 
bel ?  Are  these  elements  native  or  do  they  betray  the 
assimilation  of  the  Babylonian  tradition  to  the  Greek 
myths  ?  '  If  they  are  native  elements,  what  Babylonian 
names  are  concealed  behind  the  Greek  forms?  When 
Berosus  speaks  of  Chronos-Saturn,  he  means  the  Baby- 
lonian deity  Ea,  as  appears  on  comparing  his  account  of 
the  flood  with  the  cuneiform  version  ;  and  in  the  pas- 
sages cited  relating  to  the  tower  of  Babel,  where  Chronos 
is  mentioned  the  Armenian  Chronicle  quite  properly  un- 
derstands the  god  of  that  name  to  be  intended  and  ren- 
ders it  accordingly.  But  who  are  meant  by  Titan  and 
Prometheus  ?  They  "  were  born  after  the  flood,"  and 
between  one  of  them  and  Chronos  war  raged. 

Theso  various  questions  are  difhcult  to  answer ;  but 
whatever  reply  may  be  made  to  them,  the  kinship  of 
the  tradition,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  tower  and  its 
builders,  with  the  Hebrew  narrative  is  unmistakable. 
That  it  is  an  independent  tradition  is  seen  in  its  state- 
ment that  the  tower  was  destroyed,  and  that  the  winds 
were  employed  in  the  work  of  destruction.  Josephus 
validly  cites  it  from  the  mouth  of  the  Sibyl  as  a  voice 
outside  of  Israel  speaking  of  the  event. 

Chronos  is  lacking,  perhaps  because  irrelevant,  in  the  quotation  of  the  Sibyl 
by  Josephus  (Antiq.,  I.,  iv.,  8)  and  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (contra  Julianum, 
lib.  I.). 

1  According  to  the  story  as  told  by  the  Latin  poet  Ennius  (239-169  B.C.), 
Titan  was  a  god,  son  of  Ccelus  and  Vesta,  and  elder  brother  to  Saturn.  Al- 
though the  senior,  he  yielded  the  kingdom  to  Saturn  on  condition  that  he 
raised  no  male  children.  Saturn  violated  the  agreement ;  and  Titan,  taking 
with  him  his  sons  who  are  called  Titans,  made  war  upon  his  false  brother  and 
imprisoned  him.  The  truth  of  this  history  is  taught  by  the  Erythraean  Sibyl, 
who  speaks  almost  the  same  things  (Lactantius,  Divime  institutioncs,  I.,  xiv.). 
This  is  a  different  story  from  the  tale  which  recounts  how  Zeus  hurled  the 
Titans,  the  twelve  children  of  Ouranos  and  Gaia,  out  of  heaven  into  nether 
darkness.  See  also  Moses  Chorenensis,  I.,  c.  5,  and  Lenormant's  remarks, 
Berose,  p.  41G  seq. 


THE   TOWER   OF    BABEL  145 

A  summary  of  the  intervening  events  between  the 
flood  and  the  erection  of  the  tower  at  Babel  is  furnished 
by  a  curious  passage  in  Artapanus  and  a  fragment  from 
Hestia'us,  which  it  will  be  seen  may  be  put  forward  with 
considerable  confidence  as  representing  Babylonian  tradi- 
tions. They  supplement  the  Babylonian  narrative  of 
history  subsequent  to  the  deluge,  and  serve  for  compari- 
son with  the  corresponding  Hebrew  account.  Artapanus 
is  speaking  of  Abraham  and  remarks  that  "in  certain 
anonymous  -writings  we  find  Abraham  tracing  his  lineage 
to  the  giants  who  dwelt  in  Babylonia  and  who  on  account 
of  impiety  were  destroyed  by  the  gods.  One  of  them, 
Bel,  having  escaped  death,  settled  in  Babylon,  and  having 
built  a  tower  lived  in  it,  which  was  accordingly  called 
Bel  from  Bel  the  builder  "  (Eusebius,  Prsep.  evang.,  ix., 
420).  The  passage  is  full  of  errors.  Bel  was  a  god, 
not  as  in  the  tale  one  of  the  giants  ;  the  tower  he  occu- 
pied in  Babylon  was  not  erected  by  himself,  but  was 
built  for  his  earthly  abode  by  his  worshippers  and  was 
the  chief  temple  of  the  city.  But  in  spite  of  these  mis- 
conceptions, the  story  is  based  on  genuine  Babylo- 
nian traditions:  an  impious  race  was  destroyed  by  the 
gods;  one  notable  person  escaped  ;  Babylon  was  settled 
by  the  saved  and  a  tower  erected  there,  which  was  occu- 
pied by  Bel.  This  odd  distortion  of  Babylonian  tradi- 
tion is  elucidated  by  a  fragment  of  Hestiams.  He  says  : 
"Those  of  the  priests  who  were  saved  took  the  sacred 
vessels  of  the  warlike  Zeus  [i.e.,  Bel]1  and  came  into 
Senaar  of  Babylonia"  (Josephus,  Antiq.,  I.,  iv.,  3  ;  Euse- 

1  Zeus=Bel  (Berosus  BijAo?  "or  \ia  nedtpurivevovo-L,"  and  Herodotus,  I.,  181, 
183)  =  Manluk.  'Ei-vaAio?  Zeus  recalls  Quradu  Bel,  "the  valorous  Bel"  who 
figures  in  the  story  of  the  deluge  (1.  1  I,  164,  etc.),  one  of  the  triad  Ann,  Bel, 
Ea.  The  brief  passage  from  Hestuens  la  an  interesting  example  of  the  blend- 
ing of  Bel  of  the  triad  with  Bel-Marduk,  the  chief  deity  of  the  Babylonians, 
the  establishment  of  whose  worship  in  Babylonia  is  here  attributed  to  the  sur- 
vivors of  the  flood. 


146  GENESIS   AND    SEMITIC   TRADITION 

bius,  Prsep.  evang.,  xiv.,  416).  Bel  is  not  regarded  by 
Hestiaeus  as  a  mortal  who  alone  of  his  wicked  fellows 
escaped  the  anger  of  the  gods,  but  is  recognized  as 
himself  a  deity.  It  is  some  of  his  worshippers  who  were 
delivered  from  the  destruction ;  those  of  the  jniests  who 
were  saved  brought  his  sacred  vessels  to  the  land  of 
Shinar.  The  confused  story  is  falling  into  its  proper 
confponents.  The  Babylonian  tradition  of  the  flood  ap- 
pears :  the  wicked  race  of  men  was  destroyed  by  the 
gods ;  one  favored  individual  with  his  retainers  was 
saved ;  these  survivors,  exhorted  by  Xisuthrus-Noah 
their  leader,  returned  to  Babylonia,  and  founded  the 
city  and  erected  the  tower  of  Babel. 

But  were  the  builders  of  the  tower  giants  ?  Abydenus 
merely  says  that  they  were  vain  of  their  strength  and 
size,  but  Artapanus  and  Eupolemus  x  expressly  call  them 
giants,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  uses  the  same  term  in  his 
rendering  of  Abydenus.  But  whatever  idea  may  have 
gained  currency  in  later  times  and  in  regions  remote 
from  Babylonia,  the  Semitic  tradition  as  it  flowed 
through  native  channels  gives  no  intimation  that  the  men 
engaged  in  these  enterprises  and  involved  in  these  pun- 
ishments were,  in  any  true  sense,  gigantic.  The  offspring 
of  the  mixed  marriages  [are  described  by  the  Hebrew 
writer  as  men  of  might  and  renown  ;  but  the  generations 
that  proceeded  from  them,  the  race  destroyed  by  the  del- 
uge, the  persons  saved,  their  descendants  who  under- 
took to  build  the  tower  and  were  scattered  throughout 

1  "  Eupolemus  in  his  book  on  the  Jews  of  Assyria  [Chaldea]  says  first  the 
city  of  Babylon  was  founded  by  those  saved  from  the  flood  (they  were  giants) : 
further,  they  built  the  tower  which  is  mentioned  in  history  ;  but  this  having 
been  overthrown  by  the  intervention  of  God,  the  giants  were  scattered  through- 
out the  whole  world"  (Eusebius,  Prsep.  evang.,  ix.,  418).  Eupolemus  is  iden- 
tified, rightly  or  wrongly,  with  the  Jewish  envoy  of  the  same  name  who  was 
sent  to  Rome  by  Judas  Maccabseua  about  161  B.C.  (Pr;i?p.  evang.,  ix.,  17). 
Artapanus  is  supposed  to  have  been  an  Alexandrian  Jew  living  about  a  cen- 
tury before  Christ. 


■hi 


"\ 


*     !  •  ■ 

'  ■»,  v.  V 

'!  YrcS  A 


. 


IZDUBAK   AND   THE    LION. 


IZDUBAR  AND  EABANI  IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  BULL  AND  THE  LION. 


IZIiriiAK    AND   THE   HULL.       EABANI   AND   THE   LION. 


IZDUBAR    AND  THE   LION. 


THE  TOWER   OF    BABEL  147 

the  earth  in  consequence,  are  not  distinguished  as  men 

of  unusual  size  or  strength.  On  the  contrary  a  man  of 
illicit  like  Nimrod  is  as  worthy  of  note  after  the  flood  as 
before  it.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  description  of 
these  men  of  early  times  which  is  given  by  the  native 
cuneiform  documents.  It  is  not  yet  so  complete  as  the 
Hebrew  record,  but  so  far  as  it  goes  its  testimony  is  to 
the  same  effect  as  the  Hebrew.  The  race  destroyed  by 
the  flood,  Tsitnapishtim  and  his  companions  who  were 
saved,  their  descendants  including  even  Izdubar,  are  not 
mentioned  as  though  gigantic.  Izdubar  indeed  has  co- 
lossal proportions,  many  times  larger  than  a  lion,  in  the 
sculpture  which  adorned  the  walls  of  Sargon's  palace,  and 
occasionally  elsewhere.1  A  man  who  performed  mighty 
deeds  of  valor  and  was  "  perfect  in  strength,"  was,  of 
course,  powerfully  built  and  would  naturally  be  repre- 
sented as  large.  But  even  Izdubar,  "  the  perfect  in 
strength  "  is  commonly  delineated  no  larger  than  human 
in  comparison  with  the  beasts  which  he  slays.  The  refer- 
ence to  the  strength  and  size  of  the  builders  by  Abydenus 
and  some  other  transmitters  of  the  tradition  may  be  due 
to  the  influence  of  Greek  myths  and  to  the  habit  of  re- 
garding the  men  of  the  post-Trojan  period  as  the  degen- 
erate sons  of  stalwart  ancestors,  not  like  Tydides  who 
"  grasped  in  his  hand  a  stone— a  mighty  deed— such  as 
two  men,  as  men  now  are,  would  not  avail  to  lift "  (Iliad, 
v.  302) ;  or  else,  these  Greek  transmitters  mean  by  their 
words  what  Josephns  means  when  he  says  that  the  build- 
ers of  the  tower  imagined  their  prosperity  to  be  derived 
from  their  own  power,  and  adds  that  Nimrod  their  leader 
was  "  a  bold  man  and  of  great  strength  of  hand." 

1  The  size  is  largely  determined  by  artistic  considerations.     In  the  mural 
sculptures  of  Sargon's  palace,  Izdubar  is  standing  beside  colossal  bulls  and 
approximates  them  in  size.     Where  the  dado  is  narrower,  the  figures  of  Sar- 
gon  and  his  attendants  are  frequently  over  nine  feet  in  height. 
10 


148  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

The  account  of  the  tower  of  Babel  which  has  been 
transmitted  by  the  Hebrews  is  a  tradition.  This  fact 
must  govern  interpretation.  The  survivors  of  the  flood 
and  their  descendants,  as  they  journeyed  up  and  down  in 
the  earth,  found  no  traces  of  other  men.  The  eight  per- 
sons who  were  saved  in  the  ark  and  their  posterity  consti- 
tuted the  world.  Few  in  numbers  at  first,  they  increased, 
until  eventually,  long  after  the  time  contemplated  in  the 
tradition  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  they  had  spread  over 
Western  Asia  and  into  Europe  and  Africa,  as  their  an- 
cient tabulator  could  exhibit.  This  body  of  people  in  its 
earlier  period  is  what  the  tradition  means  by  the  world 
(v.  1).  For  a  considerable  time  after  the  flood  "  the 
whole  earth  was  of  one  speech  and  one  language."  But 
it  came  to  pass  that  man  at  length  journeyed  from,  or  in, 
the  East,  moving  either  en  masse  or  in  a  body  sufficiently 
large  to  be  called  "  all  the  earth,"  and  settled  in  the 
land  of  Shinar.1  Doubtless  they  spoke  the  language  they 
had  used  in  the  country  from  which  they  migrated  ;  and 
if  they  left  some  of  their  brethren  in  the  old  home,  there 
was  still  unity  of  speech  among  the  now  disjecta  membra. 
This  body  of  men,  moreover,  whether  coextensive  with  all 
the  descendants  of  Noah  or  only  with  that  large  part  of 
his  posterity  which  through  dim  recollection  or  intercourse 
remained  in  the  knowledge  of  the  settlers  in  Babylonia, 
constituted  henceforth  "  the  world  "  in  the  mind  of  the 
transmitters  of  the  tradition  of  the  tower  of  Babel.  This 
is  a  necessary  restriction  of  the  term  ;  by  "  world  "  man 
meant  and  could  only  mean  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 

1  The  Babylonian  tradition  of  the  flood  as  transmitted  by  Berosus  appears  to 
bring  back  immediately  to  Babylonia  those  survivors  of  the  catastrophe  who 
did  not  disappear  with  Xisuthrus  to  the  realms  of  the  gods.  The  Hebrew 
narrative  leaves  it  indefinite  whether  Noah  remained  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  mountain  where  the  ark  stranded  or  returned  to  the  locality  of  his  former 
abode.  The  tradition  of  the  tower  of  Babel  has  in  view  descendants  of  Noah 
remoter  than  sons,  and  people  numerous  enough  to  be  called  the  whole  world. 


THE  TOWER   OF    BABEL  I  111 

so  far  as  their  existence  fell  within  his  knowledge.     This 
usage  of  the  won!  is  not  only  necessary,  it  is  historical. 
Tim  settlers  in  Babylonia  said:  "Let  us  make  brick 

and  build  us  a  city,  and  a  tower  whoso  top  may  reach  imto 
heaven,  and  let  us  make  us  a  name,  lest  we  be  scattered 
abroad  upon  the  face  of  the  w  hole  earth."  The  end  they 
had  in  view  was  to  prevent  their  dispersion.  The  words 
suggest  that  men  had  already  begun  to  scatter,  an  occur- 
rence which  of  itself  would  give;  rise  to  dialect  in  speech  ; 
or,  if  the  separation  of  men  and  the  division  of  language 
kid  not  commenced,  the  words  indicate  that  signs  of  the 
weakening  of  social  bonds  wire  visible.  A  city  and  a 
tower  would  counteract  the  tendency  to  disperse,  would 
secure  permanence  of  abode,  would  form  a  centre  about 
which  they  could  cluster  and  to  which  in  their  wander- 
ings their  minds  would  revert,  would  awaken  pride  in 
their  bosoms  at  the  thought  of  personal  connection  with 
a  great  and  prosperous  community.  The  motive  was  one 
of  vainglory,  but  God  thwarted  their  purpose.  An  act 
of  judgment — we  know  not  what — resulted  in  confusion 
of  their  speech,  so  that  they  did  not  understand  one  an- 
other. The  consequence  was  division  of  the  populace, 
cessation  of  the  public  works,  dissolution  of  the  nation, 
and  eventual  emigration  to  all  parts  of  the  known  world. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  change  of  speech  is  not 
asserted  to  have  been  sudden,  though  it  may  have  been  ; 
much  less  is  it  asserted  that  all  differences  observable  in 
languages  the  world  over,  or  even  those  characteristic  dif- 
ferences which  distinguish  the  great  families  of  language, 
owe  their  origin  to  the  confusion  at  Babel.  The  event  at 
Babel  must  not  be  minimized,  neither  must  it  be  exag- 
gerated. 

History  tells  of  migrations  of  people  from  Babylonia. 
which  originated  or  aggravated  dialectic  differences  in 
language.     In  most  of  these  cases  undoubtedly  the  sep- 


150  GENESIS    AND    SEMITIC    TRADITION 

aration  of  the  people  permitted  the  development  of  pe- 
culiarities in  speech  and  not  vice  versa,  as  in  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  tower  of  Babel,  did  the  difference  of  language 
lead  to  the  migration.  Whether  any  of  these  movements 
of  population,  therefore,  are  alluded  to  in  the  text  can- 
not at  present  be  determined. 

The  meaning  of  the  name  Babel.  The  native  forms  of 
the  name  are  babilu  and  kadingira,  which  signify  "  gate 
of  God."  The  designation  is  very  ancient,  earlier  than 
the  days  of  Abraham.  It  is  an  appropriate  name  for  a 
city  where  God  executed  judgment ;  for  the  gate  of  a 
town  was  a  customary  place  of  judgment.  In  stating 
why  the  city  was  called  Babel,  the  Hebrew  writer  is  not 
giving  an  etymology  of  the  name,  but  relating  the  occa- 
sion which  gave  rise  to  it ;  and  in  doing  so  he  adopts  a 
favorite  method,  employed  in  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments,  and  out  of  the  words  at  his  disposal  to  ex- 
press confusion  selected  that  one  which  approximated 
Babel  in  sound.  Men  called  its  name  Babel  because 
there  the  Lord  did  baled  the  speech  of  all  the  earth,  and 
thence  did  scatter  them  abroad  upon  the  face  of  all  the 
earth. 


H 


H 

: 

■ 


II 
I] 


I 


■I 


II 


